Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#977 Oct 26 2011 at 2:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I hate English grammar and I suck at it. Which one is the result of the other, I don't know. That is still no excuse for you not to understand a simple concept.

You and Gbaji suffer the same thing: you're incapable of concisely rendering a concept and so use 100 lines where 10 would suffice. This isn't being complete or thorough, it's just poor writing.

Then you ***** when people "pick apart" the other 90 lines and say that wasn't the point. Most people get past this by leaving those 90 lines out in the first place rather than criticizing people for reading and responding to them.

When you get state-side, I'd highly recommend a composition class at the local community college.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#978 Oct 26 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Jenga. The more pieces you have, the easier it is to knock the entire thing down with just one piece.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#979 Oct 26 2011 at 2:09 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
When trying to defend your capacity to be understood, the logical defense is not "acknowledge being awful at grammar and expressing a thought, then blame the entire english language, assert that proper grammar is not necessary, and then fault everyone else for not getting you."

But thanks for outing yourself as someone who'll frantically stab out in any direction to avoid admitting that you're the problem. Sure made my job easy.


I'm not making excuses or blaming the English language.

I'm man enough to admit my short falls, if you're too cowardly to do the same and instead try to put this all on me, then so be it.

I hate English grammar and I suck at it. Which one is the result of the other, I don't know. That is still no excuse for you not to understand a simple concept. This is an online gaming forum. There is a serious lack of grammar, even in your own post that I just quoted. That's no excuse for me to act like I don't know what you're talking about just because of your grammar errors.

You asked me a question and I answered it.

Side note, anyone who has studied various languages know that English is just a combination of various language words, which makes it more difficult to learn. Although all languages have other influences, the languages that I've studied seem to have a much easier grammar to learn.


It's hilarious that you think, having acknowledged that you're awful at it, that you're fit to tell me I should be able to understand what you write. I can't most of the time. Sometimes I think I can, and when I pose to you what I thought you said, you tell me that I'm wrong. Heck, sometimes after telling me I'm wrong, you restate your point and it seems that I was right in the first place.

If someone tells you that your manner of expressing an idea is horrible and that it makes you impossible to have a reasonable discussion with, and you know that you're bad at it, you'd think you'd just accept it.

It's pathetic. You're plodding along, slowly making your way to your point, but you keep getting distracted by irrelevant tangents and strawmen. Everyone else is ahead of you, forcing themselves to trot along at the same speed, when they want to run ahead to the stupid point that we all know you're inevitably going to get to, and argue it. Instead, they have to lead you along by the hand, constantly pulling you, kicking and screaming, back in the proper direction while you insist on wandering in circles.

I'm fully ******* aware that this is a gaming forum, and that the level of grammar here is a mixed bag. That you're notably worse than the average really ought to speak volumes to you. The only people who are harder to understand are Tailmon and Elne, and at least she has a good excuse.

Honestly, you're like a toddler. You still want to pitch a fit and put the blame elsewhere, even though you've practically admitted that you don't have a single leg to stand on.
#980 Oct 26 2011 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
So you finally agree that there are logical reasons to discriminate on skin color?


Casting isn't "discriminating" by skin color, this has been covered before by both me & Joph. You will not convince anyone here that casting = discrimination except in the simplest of definitions & continuing to try & do so is nothing but a waste of all of our times.

Also, going forward, you should know the definition of discrimination:

1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or ***.
2. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.


When we are talking about "discrimination", we are using only definition #1, since this is a DADT thread. You alternate between 1 & 2.

Now knowing which definition we mean, can you answer the following question:

Why do you think it's just & not prejudicial to discriminate due only to one's sexual orientation?
____________________________
"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


#981 Oct 26 2011 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Vageta wrote:
But a heterosexual could declare, "I'm straight!" & keep their job while a homosexual could not declare, "I'm ***!" & keep theirs. Yes, "Don't be ***" applies to both gays & straights, but it disenfranchises only one of the two.


How is that different from a male and female couple/BFF in military living conditions as opposed to same *** couples/BFFs? How is it ok in one scenario but not in the other? What's the difference? Everyone follows the same rules, some are more disenfranchised than others.
You could argue that there is a problem here. Perhaps the repeal of DADT will cause this to be re-examined.

However the issue here is a rule that fails to take into account a potential problem thus creating a loop hole. DADT is a rule created specifically to discriminate. That's fundamentally different. On the balance it is far better to repeal DADT and then deal with the potential problems then to keep enforcing unjustified discrimination.
____________________________
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
#982 Oct 26 2011 at 10:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:
1. I never claimed that it was racism, because it's not. Racial discrimination != racism.


LOL what.

Quote:
2. "the ability to pass as Caucasian" supports my claim as I'm focusing on "skin color" and not race.


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

#983 Oct 27 2011 at 4:41 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nitali wrote:
If you're talking about the people who claim to be "cured of homosexuality", then you're even more moronic than I originally thought.


Good example of readers taking the dumbest interpretation as an argument. I never said or hinted on anything about "cures". I meant exactly what I said. I specifically said SAME OR OPPOSITE ***. I previously stated women who claimed to have given up on men.


Jophiel wrote:
So a meaningless term. Got it.


Explain how it's meaningless? How is a form of discrimination that is accepted by society (i.e. women not mandated to sign for selective service) any less of discrimination? That's the entire point of this topic. I'm pointing out that as a society, we accept various forms of discrimination based on every human aspect that we say we shouldn't discriminate against. How is homosexuality special?

Jophiel wrote:

By all means, you tell me so I can get a good laugh.


I asked you the question. If you don't know the answer, then say so.

Jophiel wrote:

The legal one which contains the bit about BFOQs you so wish to pretend doesn't exist?


By "legal", you mean the one that you just made up? Legalizing a form of discrimination doesn't make it any less of discrimination. It makes it legal. That's like saying "legalizing marijuana makes it no longer a drug". So please tell me what definition of discrimination you are using where denying someone a job based on their color is NOT racial discrimination. Whether or not it's legalized, i.e. slavery at one point of time, doesn't mean it isn't discrimination, or slavery at one point of time.

So, if slavery is legal, then it isn't slavery? If prostitution is legal, then it's not prostitution? I can legally kill someone here in Iraq, is that not still murder?

Jophiel wrote:
Way to take the shallow approach. My claim was in regards to a select industry which is covered through the BFOQ rules. You came up with retail because... well, I have no idea, really. I guess because you're getting desperate.


So, are you going to answer the question?

Jophiel wrote:
The problem here is with your lack of understanding regarding discrimination law and shifting definitions to try to meet a pre-decided point. But if you're saying you give up, that's fine as well. Have fun getting your doodle looked at by teh gayz


My lack of understanding? You're claiming that discrimination listed under DISCRIMINATION LAWS aren't really discrimination? WTF? Then why are they listed under discrimination laws? Are there driving laws listed there also? Society has hand picked special scenarios where discrimination is logical and protected them under the law. That's how it works, if you think it works some other magical way, then please enlighten me.

Edited, Oct 28th 2011 6:13pm by Almalieque
#984 Oct 27 2011 at 4:44 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nitali wrote:
If you're talking about the people who claim to be "cured of homosexuality", then you're even more moronic than I originally thought.


Good example of readers taking the dumbest interpretation as an argument. I never said or hinted on anything about "cures". I meant exactly what I said. I specifically said SAME OR OPPOSITE ***. I previously stated women who claimed to have given up on men.



So these women force themselves to be lesbians?
____________________________
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
#985 Oct 27 2011 at 5:44 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Well, there's plenty of *** men who force themselves to be straight. But those do usually end up cheating on their wives or other things like that.
____________________________
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.
#986 Oct 27 2011 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Explain how it's meaningless?

Explain how it's meaningful since you want people to use it as a barometer. When you jump around from scenario to scenario and demand that we consider the lack of midget women being cast as Shaq to be the same as women not entering selective service to be the same as banning open mention of your sexuality, it's up to you to connect the dots in a sane and logical fashion. Maybe you've convinced yourself that you've done so but I don't think anyone else agrees.

I've ignored the rest of your post because until you can accomplish this, there's no reason to humor you shotgunning arguments all over the place and praying one hits.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#987 Oct 27 2011 at 7:40 AM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
I heard Verne Troyer has been cast in the next Batman movie as Killer Croc.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#988 Oct 27 2011 at 9:44 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Eske wrote:
It's hilarious that you think, having acknowledged that you're awful at it, that you're fit to tell me I should be able to understand what you write. I can't most of the time. Sometimes I think I can, and when I pose to you what I thought you said, you tell me that I'm wrong. Heck, sometimes after telling me I'm wrong, you restate your point and it seems that I was right in the first place.

If someone tells you that your manner of expressing an idea is horrible and that it makes you impossible to have a reasonable discussion with, and you know that you're bad at it, you'd think you'd just accept it.



I made a statement " I'm not naive. I realize some stuff I say maybe misleading, not clear, etc."

You responded with "Do you? Do you really? "

I responded with my short falls in writing. HOWEVER, that does not excuse your ignorance. Just read what just happened. I said the following "Is it possible to consciously will yourself to find someone of the same or opposite *** attractive? Of course it is."

What was interpreted?
"If you're talking about the people who claim to be "cured of homosexuality", then you're even more moronic than I originally thought. "

This is after I said that I've heard testimonies of women giving up men.. There is simply no excuse for that. None, whatsoever.

The bottom line is, I'm willing to take some fault after the first 2 or 3 posts, but after 20 pages later, you can't blame ALL misunderstandings on me.

Eske wrote:
It's pathetic. You're plodding along, slowly making your way to your point, but you keep getting distracted by irrelevant tangents and strawmen. Everyone else is ahead of you, forcing themselves to trot along at the same speed, when they want to run ahead to the stupid point that we all know you're inevitably going to get to, and argue it. Instead, they have to lead you along by the hand, constantly pulling you, kicking and screaming, back in the proper direction while you insist on wandering in circles.


Are you referring to my references of "post 206", because that's what it sounds like. I said everything in advance, all at once. You all complain about it because you're too lazy to read. So, I break it down, then you complain to hurry it up.

Eske wrote:
I'm fully @#%^ing aware that this is a gaming forum, and that the level of grammar here is a mixed bag. That you're notably worse than the average really ought to speak volumes to you. The only people who are harder to understand are Tailmon and Elne, and at least she has a good excuse.

Honestly, you're like a toddler. You still want to pitch a fit and put the blame elsewhere, even though you've practically admitted that you don't have a single leg to stand on.


The fact that you act like this was my first, second or even third time saying that only proves your own ignorance. Thanks for pointing that out. If you haven't realized by now, we've been having the same exact arguments for years now. It's the same arguments and here you are acting like this is all new.

Way to prove my point!

I accept what I know is my fault. I am not accepting your ignorance.

Edited, Oct 27th 2011 5:45pm by Almalieque
#989 Oct 27 2011 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
I am not accepting your ignorance.


We've accepted yours. Not accepting Eske's is discrimination.

Racist.

Edited, Oct 27th 2011 11:51am 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


#990 Oct 27 2011 at 9:52 AM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Alma wrote:
I am not accepting your ignorance.


We've accepted yours. Not accepting Eske's is discrimination.


But discrimination is OK, just look at Hollywood!
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#991 Oct 27 2011 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Smiley: oyvey
#992 Oct 27 2011 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
What's this **** about women giving up on men and deciding to date women? I'm sure most of those women were already bisexual or at least bicurious to begin with. Besides, there's far less of a stigma against female bisexuals than male bisexuals. Men are far more open to dating a woman who has previously been in a same-*** relationship than women are in the analogous situation, in general. Without such a stigma, you might see more men giving same-*** relationships a shot after strings of failed heterosexual relationships.
____________________________
Banh
#993 Oct 27 2011 at 12:21 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Monsieur Spoonless wrote:
What's this sh*t about women giving up on men and deciding to date women?
It's the excuse he keeps hearing. "It's not you, it's me. I just feel more attracted to women is all!"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#994 Oct 27 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I don't see why it matters what kind of trait sexuality is, or whether it's a choice or not.

It's not. There, I'm glad we cleared that up.


I tend to agree with you, but even if it is, does it matter??

I submit that it does not.

Apparently making a concious choice would strip you of human rights. Or something?


Religion is a choice. If we can protect people's right to choose their religion - then even if homosexuality is a choice, there is no reason that choice can't be protected like other choices are.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#995 Oct 28 2011 at 5:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Well said, Olo, I'd just add the caveat that said choices can't cause harm (real harm, not just someone feeling uncomfortable) to someone else.
____________________________
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
#996Almalieque, Posted: Oct 28 2011 at 10:10 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I can't speak for women that I don't know. I would assume no. I'm sure there were much more women who tried to be with women who went back to men than there were women who tried to be with women and stayed with them.
#997 Oct 28 2011 at 10:19 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Explain how it's meaningless?

Explain how it's meaningful since you want people to use it as a barometer. When you jump around from scenario to scenario and demand that we consider the lack of midget women being cast as Shaq to be the same as women not entering selective service to be the same as banning open mention of your sexuality, it's up to you to connect the dots in a sane and logical fashion. Maybe you've convinced yourself that you've done so but I don't think anyone else agrees.

I've ignored the rest of your post because until you can accomplish this, there's no reason to humor you shotgunning arguments all over the place and praying one hits.


I did, in post 983.

Your whole argument is "It's no longer discrimination if it's protected by law". The legality of the action doesn't change the definition of the action.

And I ask again... Do you believe that racial quotas and minority scholarships are racial discrimination?
#998 Oct 28 2011 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I did, in post 983.

Obviously not or else I wouldn't have read your post and needed to ask.

I've ignored the rest of your post because until you can accomplish this, there's no reason to humor you shotgunning arguments all over the place and praying one hits.

Edited, Oct 28th 2011 11:26am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#999 Oct 28 2011 at 10:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
20 fucking pages. 20 fucking pages. 20 fucking pages? What is wrong with you people?
____________________________
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

#1000 Oct 28 2011 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
We're really bored.
____________________________
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
#1001 Oct 28 2011 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
21 now
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

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