Way to avoid the point. You either support a concept or you don't. It's universal. If you believe that there is an exception to your concept, then you state it.
And what concept is it that you're arguing?
Neither of us have the power to make any changes or create any nationwide polls. That doesn't have any effect on the consistency of your beliefs.
While that's true, if it was remotely possible for woman to want to desegregate their bathrooms & showers you could with a straight face use your argument (Which is something to do with supporting segregation by sexual orientation as you believe it is equivalent to segregation by gender).
That just isn't a reality of the world you live in, just like segregation by sexual orientation in bathrooms & showers: It's a fantasy
So, that means that you DO BELIEVE that there exist a scenario to logically discriminate against sexuality? Or, is your opinion whatever others believe?
I've said it repeatedly in this thread that "Comfort" was the reason used to justify the discrimination resulting from the implementation of DADT. I didn't like it, but I understood the logic behind it. This entire thread has been one giant circle-jerk of trying to get you to state clearly what logic you would used to re-instate DADT.
You had mentioned it, but you never expounded on it. How is it that "plumbing" doesn't matter in the office, but it magically does in the shower and in the living areas? Are you suggesting that there is a difference between working with someone and living with someone?
Plumbing is pretty important in whatever building your in, be it a shower, bathroom, house, or office. I don't have to suggest there's a difference between working & living with someone, as there usually is. Well, except for the military, where you tend to do both!
This entire debate has been over DADT and your only counter has been polls of people being comfortable with homosexuals in the military. You made the comparison that "being comfortable with homosexuals in the military" is the same as "supporting DADT".
Being comfortable with homos in the military is not the same as supporting DADT. Thinking they are the same is silly. The majority of Americans & military members now being comfortable with open homosexuals lead to DADT repeal
& I used multiple polls from multiple places to show evidence of that. Ya know, because I'm using an argument with facts to support it as opposed to an argument of hypothetical situations that could result from what I'm arguing for.
This is equivalent to you arguing against DADT repeal because then, hypothetically, the straight members of the military might start listening to Cher
Which by concept, is the same as "being comfortable with women in the military" equaling "men and women sharing quarters".
Explain to me how being comfortable with woman in the military equates to them having to share quarters.
False. You should look up the word prejudice. Prejudice is all about PREJUDGING.
Prejudice =/= "Prejudging".
Prejudice = "Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience."
Not hiring someone because of their skin color does not automatically denote prejudged thoughts. That's why casting is a great example. Do you think all white or all black casts are coincidences? No. People were discriminated, no one of certain races were hired, but that doesn't mean that there were any prejudicial thoughts against one or another.
There tends to be "reason" behind casting decisions, which makes casting non discriminatory, as there is no prejudice involved.
I didn't hire you because I wanted an Asian man, but I have no prejudging thoughts towards you or your race.
If you're casting an asian man, then it's non discriminatory. If you're hiring for a cashier in a non ethnic shop, then it's probably discriminatory.
That's never prejudice.. As I said, you're just throwing around terminology without understanding it's meaning.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah......A-Hahahahahahahahahah... Hahahah. Heh.
Post 206. If you choose not to address it, then that's your problem.
Post 206 was address in post 385. If you still can't explain yourself, you're either a coward, a homophobe, or a ******.
Not only is EVERYONE applicable of receiving a minority scholarship, I actually received one during one summer session. The only reason why I support minority scholarships is because there are tons of scholarships that are not based on any merit of the applicant. That doesn't change the fact that it's still discriminatory.
If your goal is to remove unjust racial inequality, affirmative action is a lazy fix me up that doesn't solve the actual problems. Although it is a solution, I still know it's discrimination. There is no other way to look at it.
There's no prejudice involved in affirmative action, so it's non-discriminatory. AA isn't perfect, but until there's a better way to address the advantages of the generational wealth enjoyed by the descendants of slave owners, we've got to do something to attempt to even remotely level the playing field for the descendants of slaves.
Quote a statement of mine in support of my argument that supports that definition.
Your entire casting tirade. Edited, Nov 15th 2011 1:49am by Omegavegeta