Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#502 Oct 08 2011 at 7:33 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 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.


You act like men don't rape men. You can live in denial all you want, but it happens. Admittedly, when we are briefed on the amount of male on male rapes that occur each month, we laugh, but at the end of the day, it happens. It's not as unlikely as you make it. Besides, it doesn't have to be sexual assault, just the THOUGHT of a male examining a woman while she's showering is sufficient enough to warrant the separation. Yet, it somehow isn't for same ***.

Nilatai wrote:
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.


After you answer the question I provided first.

Omegavegeta wrote:
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" sh*t, 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.


Did you read my part on gender? That makes absolutely no sense. If it were based on gender, then that would mean feminine men could shower with women and masculine women could shower with men.

I answered your question. If you don't want to accept a reference, then I guess you're out of luck because any other answer would be the same exact words from that post. So, I have two choices, repeat myself or reference myself. I chose the latter. You were the one who wanted a short response, well I gave it to you.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#503 Oct 08 2011 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
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.


After you answer the question I provided first.



You're like a child.

For the record, there is a difference between ***, gender and sexuality. The only thing taken into consideration when designating showers or toilets is ***, because the other two shouldn't really be an issue.


Now, answer my question. Are you forced to stand next to a particular person when you shower? I'm genuinely curious. Maybe lolgaxe can answer for me.
____________________________
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
#504 Oct 08 2011 at 7:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:


You act like men don't rape men. You can live in denial all you want, but it happens. Admittedly, when we are briefed on the amount of male on male rapes that occur each month, we laugh, but at the end of the day, it happens. It's not as unlikely as you make it. Besides, it doesn't have to be sexual assault, just the THOUGHT of a male examining a woman while she's showering is sufficient enough to warrant the separation. Yet, it somehow isn't for same ***.
Men do rape men, but they absolutely would not get away with it in a military shower. On the other thought, men and women can examine each other on plenty of nude beaches throughout the globe with hardly any issues.
____________________________
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
#505 Oct 08 2011 at 7:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:


You act like men don't rape men. You can live in denial all you want, but it happens. Admittedly, when we are briefed on the amount of male on male rapes that occur each month, we laugh, but at the end of the day, it happens. It's not as unlikely as you make it. Besides, it doesn't have to be sexual assault, just the THOUGHT of a male examining a woman while she's showering is sufficient enough to warrant the separation. Yet, it somehow isn't for same ***.
Men do rape men, but they absolutely would not get away with it in a military shower. On the other thought, men and women can examine each other on plenty of nude beaches throughout the globe with hardly any issues.

You really think Alma has ever been on a nude beach? I mean, there might be gays!
____________________________
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
#506 Oct 08 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
how does that contradict anything that I've said?

You're at the watering hole; the next step is yours.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#507 Oct 08 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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.


Me? Noooo.....I'd never do that....

I don't think you have an argument, frankly.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#508 Oct 08 2011 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent

Alma wrote:
Did you read my part on gender? That makes absolutely no sense. If it were based on gender, then that would mean feminine men could shower with women and masculine women could shower with men.


You love your false equivalencies, don't you? It is based on gender/*** & no that doesn't mean the fairy's get to shower with the woman. It's the same as the gym, boys shower with boys & girls shower with girls. Now stop debating this shower nonsense, as you say it doesn't effect you.
Alma wrote:

I answered your question. If you don't want to accept a reference, then I guess you're out of luck because any other answer would be the same exact words from that post. So, I have two choices, repeat myself or reference myself. I chose the latter. You were the one who wanted a short response, well I gave it to you.


I've read that post & told you what I got out of it. You said I was ignorant, 'cause apparently you didn't mean what I thought you meant when you devolved to talking about showers again. BY ALL MEANS...use the words from that post & put them in the mad lib.

Fill out the madlib, only then may I begin to understand your thoughts on the matter.
____________________________
"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


#509 Oct 08 2011 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
I know it's been said a million times, but since *** men already shower with straight men, and people generally have a pretty good idea of who's *** by your own admission, nothing is changing. Feel free to start a movement to get separate showers, but even if that was a defensible idea, it's totally irrelevant to the idea of not having to hide who you are.

Still ignoring my post I see. I'm amazed at your persistence having admitted you've lost the argument.

Edited, Oct 8th 2011 11:12am 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
#510 Oct 08 2011 at 2:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
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.


After you answer the question I provided first.



You're like a child.

For the record, there is a difference between ***, gender and sexuality. The only thing taken into consideration when designating showers or toilets is ***, because the other two shouldn't really be an issue.


Now, answer my question. Are you forced to stand next to a particular person when you shower? I'm genuinely curious. Maybe lolgaxe can answer for me.



Nice try, but that wasn't the question. Let me assist you.

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


Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:


You act like men don't rape men. You can live in denial all you want, but it happens. Admittedly, when we are briefed on the amount of male on male rapes that occur each month, we laugh, but at the end of the day, it happens. It's not as unlikely as you make it. Besides, it doesn't have to be sexual assault, just the THOUGHT of a male examining a woman while she's showering is sufficient enough to warrant the separation. Yet, it somehow isn't for same ***.
Men do rape men, but they absolutely would not get away with it in a military shower. On the other thought, men and women can examine each other on plenty of nude beaches throughout the globe with hardly any issues.


So you think men would get away with raping women in a military shower? Your nude beach scenario fails, because its totally optional. You don't have to "bathe" at a nude beach in order to shower. Just like how you don't have to change or shower at the gym. Those are all optional if you want to shower. Those are not options if you want to shower in the field.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#511 Oct 08 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Omega wrote:
You love your false equivalencies, don't you? It is based on gender/*** & no that doesn't mean the fairy's get to shower with the woman. It's the same as the gym, boys shower with boys & girls shower with girls. Now stop debating this shower nonsense, as you say it doesn't effect you.


Why again did you use the word gender if you were using the "***" definition as if you meant something differently? Of course they are separated by ***, that was the entire point. The question was WHY? I asked you to provide a logical explanation in why the showers, gyms etc. are separated by *** for any other reason outside of sexuality. You keep saying "gender". Not only is that not an explanation, you're simply using the "***" definition which was the question to begin with.

Also, I don't speak for all service members. I said that showers currently don't affect ME, not everyone else in the military. Just because I'm not starving in Cambodia doesn't mean I can't have an invested interest in their hunger.

Omega wrote:
I've read that post & told you what I got out of it. You said I was ignorant, 'cause apparently you didn't mean what I thought you meant when you devolved to talking about showers again. BY ALL MEANS...use the words from that post & put them in the mad lib.

Fill out the madlib, only then may I begin to understand your thoughts on the matter.


And I told you that you would get the same response unless you tell me specifically which parts confused you or gave you your inference. I wrote a lot of stuff and I'm not going to repeat that in hopes of you understanding as opposed to you just telling me which part didn't jive with you or gave you your inference and why.

As of now, it appears that you merely skimmed it and said it didn't make any sense. Else, tell me which part didn't make sense. When I preface a statement by saying "this isn't my argument for DADT, but my two long posts are" and you STILL claim that it is, the fault is on you. Either you can't read, didn't read or didn't care.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#512Almalieque, Posted: Oct 08 2011 at 2:48 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I actually already answered it. I guess you must have missed it eh? But if this is your way of trying to avoid responding to my post by pretending that I didn't already respond, then knock yourself out.
#513 Oct 08 2011 at 4:12 PM Rating: Excellent
You guys must be either incredibly bored, or trying to give Alma carpal tunnel syndrome.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#514 Oct 08 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
If we ruin his hands, he'll have to get some of his PFCs to jack him off.
____________________________
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.
#515 Oct 08 2011 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Debalic wrote:
If we ruin his hands, he'll have to get some of his PFCs to jack him off.


But then he will catch the ghey! Or give it to someone else, I am not sure which at this point...
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#516 Oct 08 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
For an argument that has nothing to do with who showers with who, there is an awful lot of talk about who showers with who in this argument.

Just sayin'.
#517 Oct 08 2011 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:

So you think men would get away with raping women in a military shower?
Get away with? No. Would it be much more likely than a man on man rape in a military shower? Absolutely.
____________________________
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
#518 Oct 08 2011 at 10:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
And I told you that you would get the same response unless you tell me specifically which parts confused you or gave you your inference. I wrote a lot of stuff and I'm not going to repeat that in hopes of you understanding as opposed to you just telling me which part didn't jive with you or gave you your inference and why.

As of now, it appears that you merely skimmed it and said it didn't make any sense. Else, tell me which part didn't make sense. When I preface a statement by saying "this isn't my argument for DADT, but my two long posts are" and you STILL claim that it is, the fault is on you. Either you can't read, didn't read or didn't care.


See post #385. Some of it is coherent, some of it is not, & none of it explains why YOU feel the way YOU do about teh gheys.

No more shower talk: Girls shower with girls & boys shower with boys because boys have *****' & girls have vaginas. The repeal of DADT doesn't change that. Could some hypothetical straight man, whom isn't Alma, be uncomfortable now showering with Bob that just came out to him? Sure. Does that mean DADT shouldn't have been repealed & Bob should not be able to come out if he wants too? NO.

Fill out the madlib. I don't care about the hypothetical situations that you think could arise because of DADT repeal. I don't care about your false equivalencies, because everyone besides yourself knows they're illogical. I care only about WHY it is that YOU feel the way that YOU do about Homosexuals to be so anti-SSM & anti DADT repeal & how it is that these issues effect YOU, PERSONALLY.

Once again, in all of your posts, the only bit of information I've read from you that touches on this at all is that you would be uncomfortable if a *** dude looked at your junk. If you don't want DADT repealed because you would rather not know that Bob was *** so you could shower comfortably then that is fine. It's not a good enough reason to re-instate DADT, mind you, but it would at least tell us why it is that YOU feel the way that YOU do about 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


#519 Oct 08 2011 at 11:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Omegavegeta wrote:


Fill out the madlib.


Or, y'know, STFU.


SRSLY, if you can't fill out the madlib without qualifications, just stop posting on the subject.



Or, y'know, be the coward I have claimed you to be.Smiley: nod
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#520 Oct 09 2011 at 12:56 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
For an argument that has nothing to do with who showers with who, there is an awful lot of talk about who showers with who in this argument.

Just sayin'.


That's because that was the focus. Someone asked what's the difference? I explained the difference and since then people went back on to say "it's all about someone seeing you in the showers!!"

The claim was that the base of the argument was that I was afraid of someone seeing my junk. My statement was THAT wasn't part of the argument because I don't shower with other people. You all just refuse to accept that and can't understand how there could be any other reason against DADT

So I proceeded to explain how their shower argument was wrong anyway. As I begin to prove them wrong, now they want to drop the shower argument as opposed to just admitting that they are wrong. I'm not dropping it, because I want them to accept the fact that they are wrong in that arena as well.

Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:

So you think men would get away with raping women in a military shower?
Get away with? No. Would it be much more likely than a man on man rape in a military shower? Absolutely.


Soooooooo... you believe that it would happen more often and that alone is enough to justify the segregation?

Omega wrote:
See post #385. Some of it is coherent, some of it is not, & none of it explains why YOU feel the way YOU do about teh gheys.


Wow.. I filled out your madlib to say refer to post 206 and you reply with post 385? This is exactly why you don't "understand", because you don't read or pay attention.

Secondly, you didn't tell me exactly what made sense, what didn't make sense and what lead you to your conclusion. You simply stating that some made sense and some didn't doesn't do anything for me. I'm not going to repeat anything until you give me details from post 206.

Omega wrote:
No more shower talk: Girls shower with girls & boys shower with boys because boys have *****' & girls have vaginas


You haven't given an explanation on why we are separated by ***. The fact that men have penises and women have vaginas IS THE SEPARATION OF ***. If that weren't the case, then it wouldn't be separated by ***. I'm asking you to provide a logical explanation on why we are separated by *** (that means, people who have penises go into one place, the people who have vaginas go in another place) that supports building two of everything?

So, men shouldn't work along side women because women have vaginas and men have penises? What's the difference? You guys pretend that our body parts go away in the office? What's the difference? How come we aren't segregated everywhere else in life?

Omega wrote:
The repeal of DADT doesn't change that. Could some hypothetical straight man, whom isn't Alma, be uncomfortable now showering with Bob that just came out to him? Sure. Does that mean DADT shouldn't have been repealed & Bob should not be able to come out if he wants too? NO.


Read post 206 again for the reasons why DADT SHOULD be in effect. I'm merely trying to get you to stop pretending that there's a difference between a woman not wanting to shower with a man and a man not wanting to shower with a ****.

Omega wrote:
Fill out the madlib. I don't care about the hypothetical situations that you think could arise because of DADT repeal. I don't care about your false equivalencies, because everyone besides yourself knows they're illogical. I care only about WHY it is that YOU feel the way that YOU do about Homosexuals to be so anti-SSM & anti DADT repeal & how it is that these issues effect YOU, PERSONALLY.


Excuse me for being a person who thinks before he acts. If you don't think about how a change in the law may or may not affect future operations, then you fail as a leader and shouldn't be making any decisions whatsoever.

The military addressed most of my concerns in that military briefing that was presented by Bijou (I believe) a while ago, so obviously you're in the wrong. If they addressed the very same issues that not only I brought up, but others brought up, then you're just living in denial.

Omega wrote:
Once again, in all of your posts, the only bit of information I've read from you that touches on this at all is that you would be uncomfortable if a *** dude looked at your junk.


This is why I called you ignorant, but now I'm just calling you stupid. I ask again, if I'm never in that situation, how can that be the base of my argument? That doesn't make sense. You're purposely ignoring every other statement made just so you can focus on showers in attempt to make it seem about fear of being seen naked. Which in any case, I played along to show you that's the same exact reasoning why women are separated in the first place. They are identical. So, instead of admitting that fact, you're trying to dance in circles around the subject by saying "We're separated by *** because we are two different sexes". No &#@ Sherlock, the question is WHY?!?!

Omega wrote:
If you don't want DADT repealed because you would rather not know that Bob was *** so you could shower comfortably then that is fine. It's not a good enough reason to re-instate DADT, mind you, but it would at least tell us why it is that YOU feel the way that YOU do about it.


And it's all stated on post 206. If you decide to ignore everything and focus on a scenario that doesn't occur, then so be it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#521 Oct 09 2011 at 2:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
More shower/bathroom nonsense


Irrelevant to DADT repeal & your thoughts on the matter. Many, many, many logical reasons have been given as to why men use the men's room & girls use the girl's room. None of those reasons logically mean homosexual men should shower with woman. None of those reasons mean that because bathrooms & showers are separated by *** that "men shouldn't work alongside woman"; that is yet ANOTHER false equivalency by you.

Alma wrote:
This is why I called you ignorant, but now I'm just calling you stupid. I ask again, if I'm never in that situation, how can that be the base of my argument?


If "showers" aren't the base of your argument, what is?

(fill out the madlib)


Alma wrote:
You're purposely ignoring every other statement made just so you can focus on showers in attempt to make it seem about fear of being seen naked. Which in any case, I played along to show you that's the same exact reasoning why women are separated in the first place. They are identical. So, instead of admitting that fact, you're trying to dance in circles around the subject by saying "We're separated by *** because we are two different sexes". No &#@ Sherlock, the question is WHY?!?!


Q: Why are men & women separated by *** in bathrooms?

A: Men & Woman have separate bathrooms because when public toilets started being used in the Victorian ages, the separation of the sexes outside of marriage was pretty extreme (A woman needed an escort to even go on a date!). This lead to the separation of bathrooms by *** & traditionally, outside of France, that is why Public restrooms are still separated by *** throughout the world today.

Alma wrote:
And it's all stated on post 206. If you decide to ignore everything and focus on a scenario that doesn't occur, then so be it.


If post #206 explained your position, clearly, there would be no need for me to ask you to fill out the madlib. Since it doesn't, I've asked you to clarify post #206 by filling out the madlib. You will not do this, because I believe that either

a) you aren't capable of clearly stating your position

or

b) you do not want us to know the "real" reason you oppose *** rights.


Until you clearly state why it is that you oppose DADT repeal and/or how the repeal of DADT effects you, you shall remain an enormous ******, in my view. But please, prove me wrong.

(Fill out the madlib)
____________________________
"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


#522 Oct 09 2011 at 2:36 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Omega wrote:
Irrelevant to DADT repeal & your thoughts on the matter. Many, many, many logical reasons have been given as to why men use the men's room & girls use the girl's room. None of those reasons logically mean homosexual men should shower with woman. None of those reasons mean that because bathrooms & showers are separated by *** that "men shouldn't work alongside woman"; that is yet ANOTHER false equivalency by you.


So are you going to give me ONE of those logical reasons that DO NOT INVOLVE sexuality? I know you can't. I just want you to admit that there is no difference between a woman not wanting to shower with a male and a man not wanting to shower with with a homosexual.

This is completely relevant because you BELIEVE I fear of someone seeing my junk, as you have said repeatedly. Even though I've given you my full reason, I'm still proving that thought process wrong as well. In other words, even if that were my sole reason, you are still wrong.

If you don't want to admit it, it's ok, it just makes you seem silly.

Omega wrote:

If "showers" aren't the base of your argument, what is?

(fill out the madlib)


See post 206.

Omega wrote:
Q: Why are men & women separated by *** in bathrooms?

A: Men & Woman have separate bathrooms because when public toilets started being used in the Victorian ages, the separation of the sexes outside of marriage was pretty extreme (A woman needed an escort to even go on a date!). This lead to the separation of bathrooms by *** & traditionally, outside of France, that is why Public restrooms are still separated by *** throughout the world today.


Nice try.. 2 points.

1. You still haven't given a logical reason on why they are separted other than they were separated.

2. How ironic that we're talking about an repeal to something and your argument is "Well, it's always been like that, so why change it?"
So according to that logic, a logical explanation of the re-establishment of DADT is "Well, it's always been frowned upon for most of our society. SSM isn't recognized by the government in most of our states and the military has historically discriminated against homosexuals, therefore why change?" That's incredibly stupid, yet you believe it's rational for discrimination based on ***?

Omega wrote:
If post #206 explained your position, clearly, there would be no need for me to ask you to fill out the madlib. Since it doesn't, I've asked you to clarify post #206 by filling out the madlib. You will not do this, because I believe that either

a) you aren't capable of clearly stating your position

or

b) you do not want us to know the "real" reason you oppose *** rights.


Until you clearly state why it is that you oppose DADT repeal and/or how the repeal of DADT effects you, you shall remain an enormous ******, in my view. But please, prove me wrong.

(Fill out the madlib)


What part don't you specifically understand? Which parts lead you to your conclusion. How am I supposed to clarify something that I don't know what needs to be clarified?

It's like when you're studying for a final exam and you ask your teacher what to focus on and s/he says "everything". "Everything" isn't going to be equally represented on the final, some stuff will be left out or not touched on, yet s/he wants you to waste time studying for something not on a test.

Well, I'm not in school anymore, I'm not going to waste time guessing which parts made sense and which parts didn't. Either you tell me exactly what doesn't make sense and which parts lead you to your beliefs or politely STFU.

There's two reasons why I can imagine you not doing it.

a) You're too lazy to go back and read

b) You know my point is solid, so instead of taking the argument as a whole, you want me to end up "talking in circles" by addressing very specific points with your fictional boundaries.

All of your concerns are addressed in post 206, that's why I purposely quoted my original first post in that, so it would be an easy reference in one post. I've been on these threads long enough to know the ropes around here..

I already filled out your madlib, unless you want me to copy paste that entire post for each question (which I wont), then there isn't anything else I can do. You want a one sentence answer to something that takes more than one sentence to answer.



Edited, Oct 9th 2011 10:39am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#523 Oct 09 2011 at 2:38 AM Rating: Excellent
More ********* It's ok though, I expect nothing less from you.
____________________________
"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


#524Almalieque, Posted: Oct 09 2011 at 2:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Smiley: cool
#525 Oct 09 2011 at 3:18 AM Rating: Good
Alma's Post that "Explains" it all wrote:
The reason why my post did not have details the way you wanted is because it was a conceptual argument. I was asked what I thought of it and I expressed my opinion. What I realized after finishing this post was that you all expected a different type of response. I responded to the question of how I feel with the conceptual argument of allowing overall ignorance making changes does more harm than good. My post wasn't intended to point fingers at any one thing, but to go over the conceptual errors. The concept of the "big picture" is two fold.

Just as with SSM, you either accept discrimination or you don't. Just like current discrimination practices don't justify other forms of justification, neither does being affected by a form of discrimination justifies its removal.

People act like there doesn't exist a scenario in life to justify discrimination against homosexuality. At the same time, TODAY in our society, we have laws, rules and regulations that openly and blatantly discriminate against ***, skin color, height, weight, age, nationality, national background, family background, religious preference, etc. and yet you all somehow believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE for sexuality to be part of that list? What makes sexuality so special that the aforesaid can be discriminated against in the "Land of the Free", but not sexuality?

As I stated, when you join the military, you forfeit many rights that a normal citizen has. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, but the foundation of the military.

This brings up the other half of the concept. People that are ignorant of scenarios should not be making decisions on something that they don't understand. From the statements made on this forum, it is blatantly obvious that most of you all do not have the slightest clue of how the military operates. Your entire vision is derived from the media.

The U.S. military is "successful" because it operates off the concept of discipline. This is noticeably done by uniformity. When I look to my left, I see my Logistical Officer, not CPT Jorge Gonzalez, the Mexican Muslim. When everyone is treated relatively the same, you see a Soldier, regardless of ***, nationality, age, etc. This mentality enhances respect, comradery, esprit de corp and overall teamwork. When you start giving people special treatment, that all changes. When that all changes, people are looked at differently with different expectations and that bond of "Soldiers" is gone. We're no longer both Soldiers but PFC Shnuffy and SPC Smith.

Now, I'm the first person to fight against conformity. I have and will in the future be "That Guy" to stand up against something "protocol" that isn't right. So, don't get me wrong about "individualism", but if your intent is to be able to freely express yourself, then the military isn't for you. The list goes on for the rules and unwritten rules of expression while being in the military.

Let's take the living conditions. By allowing homosexuals to freely express themselves, you've created a discrimination in couples. Homosexuals are now authorized to live together in the barracks, but not heterosexual couples. Furthermore, a heterosexual male shouldn't have to live with a homosexual male for the same exact reasons why a woman shouldn't have to live with a heterosexual man. I know many are saying "suck it up, you're in the military", but the same thing can be said in any situation, i.e. to the woman living with the man. What makes your scenario so special and unique?

Next, the infamous showers. There still exist open bays and open showers, but for argument's sake, lets assume that ALL shower facilities are curtained off. Does that make a difference? Would curtains be good enough to convince society to have co-ed showers? Where I'm at, not only do the women use different showers, there's a combination on the lock that only the women know.

Next, basic housing allowances. Most junior enlisted live on post except in cases of dependents. Do you realize how many Soldiers would marry each other for the sake of extra money, nice houses and extra freedom? While there are sham marriages between men and women, it's much more likely to occur with people of the same ***, especially if they are already living together. Totally allowing this to occur with no restrictions would be costly.

Lastly, but not all, the government realizes the previous statement. That is why homosexual couples (at least from my last thread) would not get any additional benefits that a heterosexual couple would receive. Doing this creates yet another discrimination between the couples. Only this time, it's against the homosexuals. Are you willing to say "suck it up" now? Or is that only when it's against heterosexuals?

I gave you some examples, just to satisfy your hunger, but the overall issue is that you are either discriminating or you are not. If you want to end a form of discrimination, then you need to evaluate the entire scenario before making changes. If you're saying stuff like "not a real Soldier" and "middle management", then you obviously have no clue what you're saying and are not knowledgeable enough to be part of the process.

When you evaluate how the military operates, i.e. less rights and freedoms of expression, it's much cheaper and easier just to go with DADTDP. I know that same mentality was used for other forms of discrimination, but just as I said earlier in this thread, if you're accepting discrimination (just as with SSM), one doesn't automatically justify the other. You have to exclusively argue for your argument. If you argue against ALL forms of discrimination, then it does include ALL forms of discrimination, rather you specifically mention them or not.

These examples are not necessarily points to argue against DADTDP, but to demonstrate that there can exist logical reasoning against open homosexuality in an organization that restricts freedom other than fear or hatred. You may not accept it, but you can't deny that they exist. Therefore, something like this shouldn't be changed all willy~nilly, just because you think it should.

If you want it 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. Else, you're just ADDING more discrimination. If that doesn't bother you, then you can't use "discrimination" or "fairness" in your argument to repeal DADT.


Alma's Post #206 wrote:
I Alma, believe DADT shouldn't have been repealed because "you either accept discrimination or you don't. Just like current discrimination practices don't justify other forms of [discrimination], neither does being affected by a form of discrimination justifies its removal. [Since the military] ha[s] laws, rules and regulations that openly and blatantly discriminate against ***, skin color, height, weight, age, nationality, national background, family background, & religious preference[s] [I, Alma, think it should remain ok to discriminate because of sexual orientation].


Alma's Post #206 wrote:
I feel this way because " [of] the concept[s] of discipline [&] uniformity [in the military]. [Even though] I'm the first person to fight against conformity [&] I have and will in the future be "That Guy" to stand up against a "protocol" that isn't right, when you start giving people special treatment, that all changes. When that all changes, people are looked at differently with different expectations and that bond of "Soldiers" is gone."


(It should be noted that allowing a *** soldier to tell people he is *** without fear of being kicked out of the military is NOT "special" treatment, since the TRUE equivalent of it is allowing straight soldiers to say that they are straight which has always been allowed. Alma, while it IS ok for you to think this, it doesn't make it true.)

Alma wrote:
"The repeal of DADT effects me negatively because... [If *** men shower with straight men you have to allow co-ed showers] & [many Soldiers would marry each other for the sake of extra money, nice houses and extra freedom[s]. While there are sham marriages between men and women, it's much more likely to occur with people of the same ***, especially if they are already living together [&] allowing [DADT Repeal] to occur with no restrictions would be costly."

(Just because we have traditionally had Uni-*** bathroom facilities since the Victorian ages, & now we have open homosexuals in our society, this DOES NOT nor WILL IT EVER mean that we HAVE to have co-ed facilities decided by sexual orientation instead of gender. THIS IS A FALSE EQUIVALENT. You also have no proof at ALL that sham marriages are MORE likely amongst homosexuals or straights masquerading as homosexuals because DADT has been repealed.)

Alma's Post #206 wrote:
In conclusion, it was illogical to repeal DADT because " [the repeal of DADT ends up] ADDING more discrimination. [And, if your argument for DADT repeal uses] "discrimination" or "fairness", [because DADT repeal] ADD[s] more discrimination, your argument to repeal DADT can't use "discrimination" or "fairness".


(This is yet ANOTHER false equivalent. Also, how does allowing Bob to say he's *** discriminate?)

If these answers, in your own words, aren't what you meant then you'll need to fill out the madlib. Otherwise, in my opinion, you shall remain a cowardly, incoherent, illogical, ******.



Edited, Oct 9th 2011 5:27am 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


#526 Oct 09 2011 at 3:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,687 posts
Some of us have that fuckstick on ignore. I don't care what you're trying to prove, but quoting that much text from him is bad for you.
____________________________
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

#527 Oct 09 2011 at 3:29 AM Rating: Decent
Boring night on the audit my fellow hotelier & not a whole lot of activity on the boards besides this.

Plus, I really just want to know why Alma is threatened by teh gheys. He'll NEVER say so & will remain a cowardly ***, in my opinion, until he does.
____________________________
"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


#528 Oct 09 2011 at 3:43 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Omega wrote:
(It should be noted that allowing a *** soldier to tell people he is *** without fear of being kicked out of the military is NOT "special" treatment, since the TRUE equivalent of it is allowing straight soldiers to say that they are straight which has always been allowed. Alma, while it IS ok for you to think this, it doesn't make it true.)


I never argued "true equivalence". That's just something you made up. Discriminating based on *** vs skin color isn't "true equivalence" either. What exactly is your point? You enter the military, you give up rights, people are discriminated against. You haven't provided any reason other than "it's not fair" for why DADT shouldn't ever exist. That alone, is an argument against ALL discrimination.

Omega wrote:
(Just because we have traditionally had Uni-*** bathroom facilities since the Victorian ages, & now we have open homosexuals in our society, this DOES NOT nor WILL IT EVER mean that we HAVE to have co-ed facilities decided by sexual orientation instead of gender. THIS IS A FALSE EQUIVALENT. You also have no proof at ALL that sham marriages are MORE likely amongst homosexuals or straights masquerading as homosexuals because DADT has been repealed.)


You have yet provided any logical reason why there ever was or currently is any separation of any bathroom facilities. All you have provided is "it's separated because it's separated", but why?

I wasn't saying that open homosexuals demands a change in our bathrooms, that's stupid. I'm pointing out that the reason why men and women are separated in the first place is the very same reason why some men don't want to shower with homosexuals. Just because it was practiced hundreds of years ago, doesn't change that fact. If anything, it only proves my point given that our history was much more modest than today.

Omega wrote:
(This is yet ANOTHER false equivalent.


How so?

Omega wrote:
Also, how does allowing Bob to say he's *** discriminate?)



Let's take the living conditions. By allowing homosexuals to freely express themselves, you've created a discrimination in couples. Homosexuals are now authorized to live together in the barracks, but not heterosexual couples. Furthermore, a heterosexual male shouldn't have to live with a homosexual male for the same exact reasons why a woman shouldn't have to live with a heterosexual man. I know many are saying "suck it up, you're in the military", but the same thing can be said in any situation, i.e. to the woman living with the man. What makes your scenario so special and unique?

Next, the infamous showers. There still exist open bays and open showers, but for argument's sake, lets assume that ALL shower facilities are curtained off. Does that make a difference? Would curtains be good enough to convince society to have co-ed showers? Where I'm at, not only do the women use different showers, there's a combination on the lock that only the women know.


Lastly, but not all, the government realizes the previous statement. That is why homosexual couples (at least from my last thread) would not get any additional benefits that a heterosexual couple would receive. Doing this creates yet another discrimination between the couples. Only this time, it's against the homosexuals. Are you willing to say "suck it up" now? Or is that only when it's against heterosexuals?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#529Almalieque, Posted: Oct 09 2011 at 3:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Smiley: lol Don't blame your inability to accept the truth on meSmiley: grin
#530 Oct 09 2011 at 4:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
You enter the military, you give up rights, people are discriminated against.


True- to an extent. But while the military is allowed to discriminate based on gender (Womans' roles in combat, for example), they are NOT allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation or race.

Alma wrote:

You haven't provided any reason other than "it's not fair" for why DADT shouldn't ever exist.


False: Because the military allowed straights to be open about their sexuality & disallowed homosexuals from being open about theirs (by kicking them out if they were ***), this caused an issue in regards to equal rights. For you see, it wasn't actually against the military code of conduct, at the time of DADT repeal, to be *** while in the military. It was ONLY against the military code of conduct to be OPEN about one's homosexuality. Since it was well known that there were already *** folks serving in the military, this was a clear example of discrimination based solely upon one's sexual orientation. Since the Government of the USA does not & cannot discriminate solely because of one's sexual orientation, the logical result of this was the repeal of DADT.

Alma wrote:
Let's take the living conditions. By allowing homosexuals to freely express themselves, you've created a discrimination in couples. Homosexuals are now authorized to live together in the barracks, but not heterosexual couples. Furthermore, a heterosexual male shouldn't have to live with a homosexual male for the same exact reasons why a woman shouldn't have to live with a heterosexual man. I know many are saying "suck it up, you're in the military", but the same thing can be said in any situation, i.e. to the woman living with the man. What makes your scenario so special and unique?


Homosexual men are allowed to room with other homosexual men in the barracks, this is true & has ALWAYS been true, as barracks have always been divided by gender. However, I'm sure if two homosexual men became a couple & lived in the same barracks this wouldn't be allowed for the same reasons that a straight couple within the same unit probably wouldn't be allowed to stay in the same unit for long. Are you somehow implying that just because two people in the same barracks are *** that they'll be a couple? The fact of the matter is, allowing gays to be open in the military doesn't make them "special" at all, it simply makes their sexuality equivalent to a heterosexual person's. DADT repeal in no way shape or form discriminates against heterosexual couples in any way.

Alma wrote:
Next, the infamous showers. There still exist open bays and open showers, but for argument's sake, lets assume that ALL shower facilities are curtained off. Does that make a difference? Would curtains be good enough to convince society to have co-ed showers? Where I'm at, not only do the women use different showers, there's a combination on the lock that only the women know.


Cool story, too bad it doesn't apply to DADT repeal.

Quote:
Lastly, but not all, the government realizes the previous statement. That is why homosexual couples (at least from my last thread) would not get any additional benefits that a heterosexual couple would receive. Doing this creates yet another discrimination between the couples. Only this time, it's against the homosexuals. Are you willing to say "suck it up" now? Or is that only when it's against heterosexuals?


How are homosexuals discriminated against by DADT repeal?

Alma wrote:
Don't blame your inability to accept the truth on me


I've accepted the truth: You are an enormous ******.
____________________________
"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


#531 Oct 09 2011 at 5:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
I realize you're bored Omega, but come on... this is getting crazy. Alma's in the closet, he's afraid somehow DADT will get him OUT of the closet. And he has a learning and/or communication disability that doesn't allow him to get his point across (ha! what point??) or understand others' points.
#532 Oct 09 2011 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Once you've established that people have a right to something, the question should never be "Why do you deserve to have your rights" but "Why is it justified to take my rights?"

I shouldn't have to explain why I don't want my boring-*** phone calls listened in on; you need to explain why it's worth invading my privacy to listen to them.

I shouldn't have to justify why I should be allowed to marry whoever; you need to justify why my basic rights being violated is better than the alternative.

I shouldn't have to justify why I want to build a house of worship on properly zoned property; you need to explain why my First Amendment rights no longer apply when you demand that I not do so.

I shouldn't have to justify why I should be allowed to casually discuss a same-*** partner as a soldier the same way another might talk about his wife or fiancee; you need to justify why this is forbidden to me.

The default should never be to force someone into defending their rights at the threat of having them taken away and it's more than a little unsettling that people tasked with defending those rights demand exactly this. At least Gbaji's hypocrisy on the subject is on an amateur basis; Alma is getting paid for this.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#533 Oct 09 2011 at 7:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
I actually already answered it. I guess you must have missed it eh? But if this is your way of trying to avoid responding to my post by pretending that I didn't already respond, then knock yourself out.
Nope, But this is probably more amusing anyway.

I was actually interested in your response at that point, but oh well. I find it strange that you'd shift to just lying about it though, I didn't think that was in character for you.

Edited, Oct 9th 2011 8:40am 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
#534 Oct 09 2011 at 8:39 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I realize you're bored Omega, but come on... this is getting crazy. Alma's in the closet, he's afraid somehow DADT will get him OUT of the closet. And he has a learning and/or communication disability that doesn't allow him to get his point across (ha! what point??) or understand others' points.

Considering that he's a Signal Officer, his lack of communication skills is somewhat worrisome, and amusing at the same time.
____________________________
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.
#535 Oct 09 2011 at 8:52 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,250 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
For an argument that has nothing to do with who showers with who, there is an awful lot of talk about who showers with who in this argument.

Just sayin'.
WITH WHOM Smiley: mad
____________________________
Banh
#536 Oct 09 2011 at 11:12 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
For an argument that has nothing to do with who showers with who, there is an awful lot of talk about who showers with who in this argument.

Just sayin'.
WITH WHOM Smiley: mad


I have never known when to use who versus whom. I'll have to take your word for it.

I'm a product of TN schools. The word "whom" never even came up in English class.

ETA: Thank you, Grammar Girl:

Quote:
OK, here's the quick and dirty tip. Like whom, the pronoun him ends with m. When you're trying to decide whether to use who or whom, ask yourself if the answer to the question would be he or him. That's the trick: if you can answer the question being asked with him, then use whom, and it's easy to remember because they both end with m. For example, if you're trying to ask, "Who (or whom) do you love?" The answer would be "I love him." Him ends with an m, so you know to use whom. But if you are trying to ask, "Who (or whom) stepped on Squiggly?" the answer would be "He stepped on Squiggly." There's no m, so you know to use who. So that's the quick and dirty trick: if you can't remember that you use whom when you are referring to the object of the sentence, just remember that him equals whom.


And thank you, Spoonless, for forcing me to learn something! Smiley: yippee

Edited, Oct 9th 2011 12:16pm by Belkira
#537 Oct 09 2011 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,250 posts
Always a pleasure to force something on someone else.
____________________________
Banh
#538 Oct 09 2011 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Spoonless wrote:
Always a pleasure to force something on someone else.
And this is why we can't have co-ed communal showers.
____________________________
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
#539 Oct 09 2011 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,250 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Always a pleasure to force something on someone else.
And this is why we can't have co-ed communal showers.
I don't see the problem, as long as you don't leave marks.
____________________________
Banh
#540Almalieque, Posted: Oct 09 2011 at 1:39 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Smiley: lol
#541 Oct 09 2011 at 1:46 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Once you've established that people have a right to something, the question should never be "Why do you deserve to have your rights" but "Why is it justified to take my rights?"


You're absolutely correct in scenarios where discrimination is very limited. In scenarios where you are discriminated against from the front door, then it's the exact opposite.

The military isn't (or at least wasn't supposed to be) a place to freely express yourself. If you want to freely express yourself then you're in the wrong career.

I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to grasp.

Sir X wrote:
Nope, But this is probably more amusing anyway.

I was actually interested in your response at that point, but oh well. I find it strange that you'd shift to just lying about it though, I didn't think that was in character for you.


Name calling now are we?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#542 Oct 09 2011 at 2:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
The military isn't (or at least wasn't supposed to be) a place to freely express yourself. If you want to freely express yourself then you're in the wrong career.
You understand there is a difference between saying 'hey, i'm ***' and wearing assless chaps while getting spanked by another man on a parade float, don't you?
____________________________
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
#543 Oct 09 2011 at 2:16 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
The military isn't (or at least wasn't supposed to be) a place to freely express yourself. If you want to freely express yourself then you're in the wrong career.
You understand there is a difference between saying 'hey, i'm ***' and wearing assless chaps while getting spanked by another man on a parade float, don't you?


Exactly. Just like there's a difference between simply having lunch with a co-worker and having an illicit affair. In the eyes of the military, perception is reality. So, if it looks like you're doing it, then you're doing it, regardless if you are or you aren't. I've explained this before.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#544 Oct 09 2011 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst fucking analogy ever.
____________________________
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
#545 Oct 09 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,687 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
The military isn't (or at least wasn't supposed to be) a place to freely express yourself. If you want to freely express yourself then you're in the wrong career.
You understand there is a difference between saying 'hey, i'm ***' and wearing assless chaps while getting spanked by another man on a parade float, don't you?


Exactly. Just like there's a difference between simply having lunch with a co-worker and having an illicit affair. In the eyes of the military, perception is reality. So, if it looks like you're doing it, then you're doing it, regardless if you are or you aren't. I've explained this before.
Given that logic, there wouldn't be a single soldier in the army as they'd all be kicked out on the assumption of raping their pet pig.
____________________________
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

#546 Oct 09 2011 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
It's the military. WE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND.
#547 Oct 09 2011 at 2:26 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Worst fucking analogy ever.

How so?

You gave a comparison stating the difference of something and the "extreme" of that very said thing. I gave an example of something and the extreme of that very said thing.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#548 Oct 09 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Worst fucking analogy ever.

How so?

You gave a comparison stating the difference of something and the "extreme" of that very said thing. I gave an example of something and the extreme of that very said thing.
So everyone who says 'hey, i'm ***' is perceived as wearing assless chaps etc on a parade float?
____________________________
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
#549 Oct 09 2011 at 2:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Worst fucking analogy ever.

How so?

You gave a comparison stating the difference of something and the "extreme" of that very said thing. I gave an example of something and the extreme of that very said thing.
So everyone who says 'hey, i'm ***' is perceived as wearing assless chaps etc on a parade float?



"Everyone" isn't necessary, just certain people of power.

Edit: By "everyone" I mean the people doing the perceiving, not the homosexuals.

Edited, Oct 9th 2011 10:36pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#550 Oct 09 2011 at 2:40 PM Rating: Excellent
If the people in power are ignorant, bigoted fools, then it's time for them to retire.
____________________________
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
#551Almalieque, Posted: Oct 09 2011 at 2:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's not just the people, that's how the military operates. "Perception is reality". Do I agree with it? Not really, but that's how it's done.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 41 All times are in CDT
Almalieque, idiggory, Poldaran, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (37)