Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#602 Oct 11 2011 at 1:36 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Alma wrote:
Something about looking in showers [...] At this rate, DADT will be re-instated before 2012
Two unrelated topics.


But alas, in the swirling, incomprehensible mass of thought-like entities that populate Alma's brain, they are one-and-the-same. Incidentally, I think they float around in the part of his mind that he activates when he's trying to avoid confronting his own self-loathing and sexual inadequacy.

Sad, really.


I wasn't going to respond to this but, I can't get over the irony of saying "two unrelated scenarios" an then "self-loathing and sexual inadequacy". Really? Really? Really? What do those have to do with anything with DADT?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#603 Oct 11 2011 at 1:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You are correct. The justification was noted on post 206 and supported in the repeal of DADT.

The justification you provided there was extremely weak though. I suppose you thought "showers!" and "they could live together!" was good enough reason to deny someone their basic freedoms but I disagree and, more importantly, so did a majority of America and Congress.
Quote:
It was something done to appeal to the people.

You mean the people who own the military by virtue of being citizens of the United States and thought your justifications were poor ones.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#604 Oct 11 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Smiley: looney
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#605 Oct 11 2011 at 2:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Funny you mention that. We are currently going over Equal Opportunity and part of the discussion is the confirmed and confronted "peepers" in the male showers. The point was to tell us that we can't attack any guy that peeps us in the shower because we would be charged with an assault even if he touches our junk. I thought that was pretty funny.

Assuming this is true, we're either being asked to believe that these "peepers" signed up for the military and were shipped to Iraq within two week's time, that they've always been there but only started "peeping" within the last two weeks or that this anecdote is irrelevant to the larger debate.

I'll take Door #3, Bob.

I'm also skeptical that you're allowed to "touch" one another's "junk" in the shower without reprisal but maybe you guys were already friskier with one another than I suspected and this whole "Boo DADT repeal!" thing is a bit of a show for your parents.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#606 Oct 11 2011 at 2:36 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,861 posts
Just something else to point out because I'm bored.
Alma wrote:
The point was to tell us that we can't attack any guy that peeps us in the shower because we would be charged with an assault even if he touches our junk. I thought that was pretty funny.
No you wouldn't, it would be self defense against a sexual assault. You're either lying or weren't paying attention at the briefing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#607 Oct 11 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
So... Alma is hoping that some poor guy gets acosted in the shower so DADT can be reinstated?

More and more I honestly wonder if Alma is truly enlisted...
#608 Oct 11 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Jophiel wrote:

The justification you provided there was extremely weak though. I suppose you thought "showers!" and "they could live together!" was good enough reason to deny someone their basic freedoms but I disagree and, more importantly, so did a majority of America and Congress.


You actually left out numerous paragraphs of reasons, but the reasons that you stated were all addressed in the repeal of DADT, so they couldn't have been that weak.

"The living conditions" were not focusing on the fact that they could live together and how that's discrimination on heterosexual couples. As a commander, I wouldn't authorize unmarried men and women living together in the barracks. I accept that discrimination as part of the military. The focus was that Jimmy the hetero shouldn't have to live with Timmy the ****. That was addressed.

The shower issue was also addressed by a Marine 4 star during the start of this. You all can live in denial about "Showers!" all you want, but the fact remains, that the concern is the same concern women have with showering with men. I acknowledge and accept the double standard, but when you all try to act like that there's a difference between the two scenarios, then you're simply in denial. I will argue against that just because it's wrong.

Jophiel wrote:

You mean the people who own the military by virtue of being citizens of the United States and thought your justifications were poor ones.


No, I mean people who don't understand the foundation of the military and believes that this repeal removed discrimination as opposed to adding discrimination because the people who realized my justifications had to adjust current practices, by adding more discrimination, to please the ignoramuses who believed the military is all better now. Just like people thought we were out of Iraq when all we had done was transition missions. Even now we are "leaving Iraq", there will still be U.S. military presence, but if it makes you feel better that you think that you done something beneficial and positive, go pat yourself on the back. Civilians.... To think, I will be one once again in the future.....bitter sweet moment.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#609 Oct 11 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Funny you mention that. We are currently going over Equal Opportunity and part of the discussion is the confirmed and confronted "peepers" in the male showers. The point was to tell us that we can't attack any guy that peeps us in the shower because we would be charged with an assault even if he touches our junk. I thought that was pretty funny.

Assuming this is true, we're either being asked to believe that these "peepers" signed up for the military and were shipped to Iraq within two week's time, that they've always been there but only started "peeping" within the last two weeks or that this anecdote is irrelevant to the larger debate.

I'll take Door #3, Bob.

I'm also skeptical that you're allowed to "touch" one another's "junk" in the shower without reprisal but maybe you guys were already friskier with one another than I suspected and this whole "Boo DADT repeal!" thing is a bit of a show for your parents.


None of that makes sense. How does option 1 even come about? Number two is just a stupid assumption. We just had training on it today, didn't mean it just happened. According to one of my friends, he claimed that he told me a long time ago. I don't ever recall him saying that.

I never said there wasn't any reprisal..

lolgaxe wrote:
Just something else to point out because I'm bored.
Alma wrote:
The point was to tell us that we can't attack any guy that peeps us in the shower because we would be charged with an assault even if he touches our junk. I thought that was pretty funny.
No you wouldn't, it would be self defense against a sexual assault. You're either lying or weren't paying attention at the briefing.


What about option #3, the EO rep put out wrong information. I wasn't there and didn't accept it, so I asked him one on one. That is exactly what he said. I don't like EO or New Horizons because I disagree with about 95% of the "EO" crap that's put out.

Only in the Army can there exist a "double rape". That is completely stupid.

Belkira the Tulip wrote:
So... Alma is hoping that some poor guy gets acosted in the shower so DADT can be reinstated?

More and more I honestly wonder if Alma is truly enlisted...


Is that how you view the backbone of the Army?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#610 Oct 11 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You actually left out numerous paragraphs of reasons, but the reasons that you stated were all addressed in the repeal of DADT, so they couldn't have been that weak.

Given that it was repealed... Smiley: laugh

Quote:
No, I mean people who don't understand the foundation of the military

You mean the organization that exists at the will of the civilians you keep crying about?

Maybe what you need is a nice military junta instead of a representative democracy. That way you'll be free to discriminate and make up weak justifications ("It's the military!!") all you want Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#611 Oct 11 2011 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
None of that makes sense. How does option 1 even come about? Number two is just a stupid assumption. We just had training on it today, didn't mean it just happened.

WOOOOOOOOSSSHH!!!!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#612 Oct 11 2011 at 3:17 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,861 posts
Alma wrote:
The focus was that Jimmy the hetero shouldn't have to live with Timmy the ****. That was addressed.
Which I corrected when I pointed out that (A) Jimmy The Breeder would be and was already living with Timmy the **** with or without DADT, and (B) For smaller living arrangements it's up to the command to decide the living arrangements which, again, has nothing to do with DADT.
Alma wrote:
You all can live in denial about "Showers!" all you want, but the fact remains, that the concern is the same concern women have with showering with men.
See (A), replace the word living with showering.
Alma wrote:
What about option #3, the EO rep put out wrong information.
Then call the garrison MPs to have him detained for releasing false information of that nature. Since, you know, that would actually be against UCMJ. So the options are you're lying, you simply weren't paying attention, or (according to you) someone felt that a dishonorable discharge and jail time was an acceptable risk.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#613 Oct 11 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:
So... Alma is hoping that some poor guy gets acosted in the shower so DADT can be reinstated?

More and more I honestly wonder if Alma is truly enlisted...


Is that how you view the backbone of the Army?


Are you saying you're the backbone of the army? If so, we're in more trouble than I thought.


Edited, Oct 11th 2011 4:21pm by Belkira
#614gbaji, Posted: Oct 11 2011 at 3:43 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Oddly enough Xsarus' answer, while tongue in cheek, is kinda correct. Given the assumption above that men are far less likely to report a sexual assault than women, the normal method of dealing with such things (or preventing them even) would be to identify someone as a homosexual in the first place. DADT provides(ed) a method by which a soldier could protect himself from unwanted sexual activity by threatening to reveal the sexual orientation of his potential assailant. This alone presumably did act as a form of deterrent, and certainly gave the victim an avenue to remove his assailant from the military without having to reveal the details of what happened.
#615 Oct 11 2011 at 3:49 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,861 posts
gbaji wrote:
DADT provides(ed) a method by which a soldier could protect himself from unwanted sexual activity by threatening to reveal the sexual orientation of his potential assailant.
Wrong. The protection against unwanted sexual activity is covered under Sexual Assault and Harassment laws.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#616 Oct 11 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Edit: Removed because the real answer is a couple posts down and there's no reason to muddle the issue.

Edited, Oct 11th 2011 5:48pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#617 Oct 11 2011 at 4:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Alma wrote:
Something about looking in showers [...] At this rate, DADT will be re-instated before 2012
Two unrelated topics.


"LOL" was denoting a joke. I wasn't serious.... I don't think "peepers" will suffice for a change. When people start getting sexually assaulted, then changes will occur. Peeping is just the "gateway" drug.. I wonder who's going to take one for the team?!?!?!Smiley: laugh


Ya **** the gays, no one ever got sexually ASSaulted in the histroy of the military ever, if it happens now it is totally because the gays can say they are ***. Not like they haven't been peeping for centuries. Just now in 2011, since they can say they love man junk in their trunk.

Alma you *****, its ok to come out, stop the fake hate.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#618 Oct 11 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Jophiel wrote:
Or that males are much more likely to report MST afterward for whatever reason. Or men make up such a large percentage of the armed forces that a much lower incidence rate still creates the same total numbers in screening. Correlation, causation, etc etc.

Huh.
Dept of Vet Affairs wrote:
About 1 in 5 women and 1 in 100 men seen in VHA respond "yes" when screened for MST. Though rates of MST are higher among women, there are almost as many men seen in VA that have experienced MST as there are women. This is because there are many more men in the military than there are women.

Whodathunkit?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#619 Oct 11 2011 at 5:03 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Given that it was repealed... Smiley: laugh


Hence the rest of my statement? You are implying that it must makes sense because it was supported? Under that notion, then DADT must make sense also because it was accepted back in the Clinton era. Just because it was voted on and accepted by the people doesn't mean it makes any sense at all, especially when people say stuff like "A homosexual can shoot a weapon just like a heterosexual can". Uh, yea, so can a convicted *** offender, what's your point?

Jophiel wrote:
You mean the organization that exists at the will of the civilians you keep crying about?

Maybe what you need is a nice military junta instead of a representative democracy. That way you'll be free to discriminate and make up weak justifications ("It's the military!!") all you want


No, what we need are presidents who hold the highest ranking military position to actually have served in the military for x amount of years as a prerequisite.

LolGaxe wrote:
Which I corrected when I pointed out that (A) Jimmy The Breeder would be and was already living with Timmy the **** with or without DADT, and (B) For smaller living arrangements it's up to the command to decide the living arrangements which, again, has nothing to do with DADT.


Uh, no, under DADT, no matter how "***" Timmy appears, he's straight unless proven other wise. Any action listed under the policy that Timmy may do that "proves" his homosexuality, then he's out. Just because Timmy wears skinny jeans, tight fish net shirts, talk with a lisp, swings his hips and talks about hair, don't make him ***. Is Timmy ***? More than likely, but none of those actions are defined as "homosexual", because those actions are merely stereotypes of a *** man, they don't define homosexuality.

Oh, with the living conditions, the generals that I sourced in the previous thread beg to differ with your opinion

LolGaxe wrote:
See (A), replace the word living with showering.
.

Read above.

LolGaxe wrote:
Then call the garrison MPs to have him detained for releasing false information of that nature. Since, you know, that would actually be against UCMJ. So the options are you're lying, you simply weren't paying attention, or (according to you) someone felt that a dishonorable discharge and jail time was an acceptable risk.


Did you overlook the portion of me saying that I disagree with 95% of the stuff that's put out. Maybe in your career, the stuff said has made sense, but I have only experienced nothing but ignorant propaganda.

Here's just a small list of things that I've heard.

There can be a double rape case... How can two people rape each other at the same time?

Having *** with a drunk girl is rape because she "can't give consent" even if she came unto you.

Glancing at a woman as she walks down the grocery aisle is "sexual harassment" even though she didn't feel harassed or was effected one way or the other by it, because she didn't know it happened.

Talking with women with short skirts is like having *** with them, therefore it's prostitution (BDE CSM)

Buying J-girls drinks in Korea is prostitution and human trafficking, although we completely allow it to happen and support it. Each drink can be up to 1? year in jail.

"Women can say no at any time" as opposed to "don't put yourself in a position where you might feel the need to say no"

I mean the list just goes on. If every person who misrepresented information or said something illogical went to jail, I assure you the EO reps would be harder and harder to find... well, actually easier to find, because they'll all be behind bars.

Belkira wrote:

Are you saying you're the backbone of the army? If so, we're in more trouble than I thought.



Uh no. NCO's are the backbone of the Army. They correct officers and assist in planning and then turn around and ensure that the Soldiers are executing the plan that the officers came up with. They are the connection between the Good Idea Fairy and Joe actually executing a mission.

Your statement was implying that the more and more I talk, the dumber and dumber I sound, so therefore I should be enlisted. That means you think very poorly of the enlisted, when in fact they are the executors that actually make things happen. Shame on you... Make fun of warrants, they're anti-social and never follow any rules Smiley: nod
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#620 Oct 11 2011 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Under that notion, then DADT must make sense also because it was accepted back in the Clinton era.

It made more sense than hunting for homosexuals to kick out, yes. It was a half-step that did what it needed to do and was ready to be retired.

Quote:
No, what we need are presidents who hold the highest ranking military position to actually have served in the military for x amount of years as a prerequisite.

You're welcome to your opinion but... yeah. Fortunately, that's not the way they decided to do it. But I bet previous military experience is a requirement to lead a military junta!

Edited, Oct 11th 2011 6:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#621gbaji, Posted: Oct 11 2011 at 5:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Did my point just /whoosh right over some people's heads?
#622 Oct 11 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Or that males are much more likely to report MST afterward for whatever reason. Or men make up such a large percentage of the armed forces that a much lower incidence rate still creates the same total numbers in screening. Correlation, causation, etc etc.

Huh.
Dept of Vet Affairs wrote:
About 1 in 5 women and 1 in 100 men seen in VHA respond "yes" when screened for MST. Though rates of MST are higher among women, there are almost as many men seen in VA that have experienced MST as there are women. This is because there are many more men in the military than there are women.

Whodathunkit?



Irrelevant. I'm talking about the ratio of men who report sexual assaults when they happen to the total number of men who are sexually assaulted. That argument doesn't have anything at all to do with the ratio of sexual assaults against all men or women as a percentage of the total number of men or women in the military.

What's funny is that I deliberately ignored you when you wrote that, thinking it would just give you a side track to argue about that wasn't relevant to the argument I'm making. And while making that decision I *knew* that you would ignore the entirety of my post and zero in on the one part I didn't respond to anyway.

Thanks for being consistent at least.


EDIT: To be as clear as possible. If 83% of all sexual assaults reported at the time of the assault are male on female, but more than 50% of all veterans who report having been sexually assaulted while serving in the military are men, then the percentage of men who do not file reports when they are assaulted must be much much higher than that of women. This is true regardless of what percentage of all men or all women in the military suffer assaults.


Edited, Oct 11th 2011 4:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#623 Oct 11 2011 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Irrelevant.

So you only thought that number mattered when it helped your argument? Smiley: laugh

Thanks for being consistent at least.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#624 Oct 11 2011 at 5:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Irrelevant.

So you only thought that number mattered when it helped your argument?


What number? I am not arguing that men are more or likely to be assaulted than women. I'm arguing that of those assaulted, men are less likely to report it at the time. Thus, military laws and punishments for sexual assaults are less applicable to male on male sexual assaults in the military. Those laws only matter if the victim reports what happened.

You're bringing up an absolutely irrelevant side fact and insisting on arguing only that. I'm not sure why.

Women are 20 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in the military.

There, happy? Can you stop pretending that I'm somehow arguing that point with you? Geez!


That fact does not change the fact that men in the military are much less likely to report being victims of sexual assaults when they happen than women are. Can you please stick to the point. Pretty please?

Edited, Oct 11th 2011 4:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#625 Oct 11 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What number?
Previously, you wrote:
Yet, in the source you linked, it said that "But women aren’t the only victims; statistics from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs indicate that more than half of those who screen positive for Military Sexual Trauma are men."

Obviously, the ratios are skewed among the populations themselves, with assault odds being higher for women than men, but the issue I'm talking about is the likelihood of the assault being reported in the first place to even have a chance of being dealt with. For that analysis, the above stats are pretty significant.

Bolding yours.

Funny how the DVA numbers "are pretty significant" when you thought they helped and suddenly stopped mattering when they don't help you quite so much.

Quote:
That fact does not change the fact that men in the military are much less likely to report being victims of sexual assaults when they happen than women are.

Playing fast and loose with the word "fact", are we? The portion quoted by you above was supposed to support this "fact", remember?
Quote:
If 83% of all sexual assaults reported at the time of the assault are male on female...

The first problem with this is that it assumes each person will only be assaulted/report an assault once rather than singular people making repeated reports (with frustrating response).

Edited, Oct 11th 2011 6:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#626 Oct 11 2011 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,861 posts
gbaji wrote:
Did my point just /whoosh right over some people's heads?
Much like Alma, your point has nothing to do with DADT, and it takes a herculean effort to try to link the two topics together.
gbaji wrote:
Put another way: Soldier1 in shower plays grab-*** with soldier2 without soldier2's permission. Under DADT, the soldier2 can report to his superiors that the soldier1 revealed to him that he is homosexual,
Before we go too far, at this point Soldier2 would be Falsifying Official Statements (Article 107). By your own hypothetical, it would have been done with intent to deceive, and the maximum punishment is a dishonorable discharge and five years. So, some reality into your hypothetical. Is Private Scruffy going to make an official statement now with the knowledge that his lying will ruin his life? Do you believe that Private Scruffy's word is just going to be automatically taken as truth, and an investigation isn't going to be done? What evidence will he have other than his word? The counter evidence is simply our hypothetical sexual assaulter saying "No, I'm not ***." So now, in your own hypothetical your own innocent party will be the one that is punished and the person who should be punished for a crime is free to do whatever he wants. DADT made no difference. Actually, it assisted the bad guy in this scenario! Good job gbaji! You hypothetically let a rapist go and ruined an innocent soldiers life because you don't know what you're talking about!

Then again, if you're stupid enough to think that "Hey, the straight guy can do illegal things all he wants!" is a viable argument, you're also stupid enough to think that those rascally gays are now going to descend from the ceilings and assault anyone and everyone with impunity!
gbaji wrote:
Absent DADT, soldier2 has to file a report that he was sexually assaulted by soldier1.
Yeah, heaven forbid someone have to do the right thing and report a crime.
gbaji wrote:
Or was that not clear enough the first time I explained it?
No, your homophobia is quite clear. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it correct. Lucky for me I actually know UCMJ so it's easy to dismiss you. Unlucky for me I have to contend with Alma who one second says he was at an EO Briefing and the next says he wasn't there but asked personally, and that it was the EO Rep that was saying completely illegal and career life ending statements.

Edit: There's actually more things wrong with your stupid hypothetical, I just pointed out the most glaring. If you'd like me to embarrass you more I'd be more than happy to point them out.

Edited, Oct 11th 2011 8:03pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#627 Oct 11 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Did you overlook the portion of me saying that I disagree with 95% of the stuff that's put out. Maybe in your career, the stuff said has made sense, but I have only experienced nothing but ignorant propaganda.

Here's just a small list of things that I've heard...

"Women can say no at any time" as opposed to "don't put yourself in a position where you might feel the need to say no"


Not that I'm shocked or anything, but apparently Alma thinks that if he's having *** with a girl, and she doesn't want to anymore, he gets to just plow through 'till he's good and satisfied.

Thankfully, he'll never find himself in that situation, because no girl will bed him anyway.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#628 Oct 11 2011 at 6:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Quote:


Belkira wrote:

Are you saying you're the backbone of the army? If so, we're in more trouble than I thought.



Uh no. NCO's are the backbone of the Army. They correct officers and assist in planning and then turn around and ensure that the Soldiers are executing the plan that the officers came up with. They are the connection between the Good Idea Fairy and Joe actually executing a mission.

Your statement was implying that the more and more I talk, the dumber and dumber I sound, so therefore I should be enlisted. That means you think very poorly of the enlisted, when in fact they are the executors that actually make things happen. Shame on you... Make fun of warrants, they're anti-social and never follow any rules Smiley: nod


That's an awful lot of inference there, chief. Mostly it's just the more you talk, the more I become convinced you have no idea what you're talking about (in terms of the military and "how things are" that is) and you just really want to convince us you're enlisted.

Having three in-laws that were in the military and hearing them talk about DADT I know that your insistence that you're right and we just don't get it is bullsh*t. So I wonder if you are really enlisted.


Edited, Oct 11th 2011 8:21pm by Belkira
#629 Oct 11 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What number?
Previously, you wrote:
Yet, in the source you linked, it said that "But women aren’t the only victims; statistics from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs indicate that more than half of those who screen positive for Military Sexual Trauma are men."

Obviously, the ratios are skewed among the populations themselves, with assault odds being higher for women than men, but the issue I'm talking about is the likelihood of the assault being reported in the first place to even have a chance of being dealt with. For that analysis, the above stats are pretty significant.

Bolding yours.

Funny how the DVA numbers "are pretty significant" when you thought they helped and suddenly stopped mattering when they don't help you quite so much.


What are you talking about? Both numbers are significant. I never said otherwise. I said that one of the numbers wasn't "relevant". That's not the same thing. If we were arguing about whether men or women were more likely to suffer a sexual assault, then the numbers showing that women are 20 times more likely to suffer such assaults would be relevant. When talking about whether men are more or less likely to report a sexual assault at the time it happens, then that number becomes irrelevant, and the numbers I've been talking about become relevant.

Is that really too hard for you to follow?

Quote:
Quote:
That fact does not change the fact that men in the military are much less likely to report being victims of sexual assaults when they happen than women are.

Playing fast and loose with the word "fact", are we?


Not at all. Why do you think otherwise?

Quote:
The portion quoted by you above was supposed to support this "fact", remember?


Yes. And it does, in conjunction with the other data I provided.

Quote:
Quote:
If 83% of all sexual assaults reported at the time of the assault are male on female...

The first problem with this is that it assumes each person will only be assaulted/report an assault once rather than singular people making repeated reports (with frustrating response).


No. It assumes that the likelihood of repeat assaults is similar among men and women. Why would you assume otherwise? Given the also stated "one in three women reporting having been sexually violated while serving in the military" there just isn't enough statistical wiggle room to make the numbers work without assuming a significantly greater underreporting by men. And when there's a pretty simple and well accepted explanation for why men might report less often than women, it just seems bizarre that you'd cling to an opposing view.

Just feel like being contrary or something?

Another way to look at it is that there is some number of sexual predators in the military who will assault their fellow soldiers, and about half of their victims will be men, and half will be women (we can't say what the ratio of actual predators is though, but it would be random guessing to say one group of predators is numerically larger than another). A woman's odds of being assaulted are much higher because there are far fewer women in the military (thus fewer targets for the same number of assaults). If an equal number of men and women were serving in the military, do you think that the same ratio of women assaulted to total women serving would remain the same? Or do you think we'd still have about the same total number, now spread out over a much larger population?


While I'm just speculating, I'd guess the later. It follows typical social patterns. It's not about the number of potential victims, but the number of potential assailants which affects the result. Again, I'm unsure why you'd assume something else.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#630gbaji, Posted: Oct 11 2011 at 7:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're kidding, right?
#631 Oct 11 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Quote:


Belkira wrote:

Are you saying you're the backbone of the army? If so, we're in more trouble than I thought.



Uh no. NCO's are the backbone of the Army. They correct officers and assist in planning and then turn around and ensure that the Soldiers are executing the plan that the officers came up with. They are the connection between the Good Idea Fairy and Joe actually executing a mission.

Your statement was implying that the more and more I talk, the dumber and dumber I sound, so therefore I should be enlisted. That means you think very poorly of the enlisted, when in fact they are the executors that actually make things happen. Shame on you... Make fun of warrants, they're anti-social and never follow any rules Smiley: nod


That's an awful lot of inference there, chief. Mostly it's just the more you talk, the more I become convinced you have no idea what you're talking about (in terms of the military and "how things are" that is) and you just really want to convince us you're enlisted.

Having three in-laws that were in the military and hearing them talk about DADT I know that your insistence that you're right and we just don't get it is bullsh*t. So I wonder if you are really enlisted.


Edited, Oct 11th 2011 8:21pm by Belkira

Alma's a *** male that has one or two family members in the military. I thought that was established months ago.
#632 Oct 11 2011 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,861 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Put another way: Soldier1 in shower plays grab-*** with soldier2 without soldier2's permission. Under DADT, the soldier2 can report to his superiors that the soldier1 revealed to him that he is homosexual,
Before we go too far, at this point Soldier2 would be Falsifying Official Statements (Article 107).
Huh? No, he's not. If soldier1 grabs his *** and "propositions" him in the shower,
Changing details in your own argument just to try to win? Smiley: laugh
gbaji wrote:
He's not lying in said hypothetical.
He actually was until you changed it to both an assault and a conversation. Don't blame me on your ill-thought hypothetical. But, to play along with you. Soldier1 assaulted and conversed with Soldier2 in a way that would be considered Sexual Assault and Harassment. Instead of going through either of these routes, Soldier2 decides to go with DADT instead. Are you going to add any more details here? I mean, even as an actual crime all we have here is hearsay at best.
gbaji wrote:
If 5 other guys all step up and say they also witnessed said soldier engaging in homosexual activities, it's a pretty easy investigation.
Yep, add details to change the argument! This is where it gets fun. See, Soldier2 would have to convince all five people to say that Soldier1 only talked about how he was ***, because that's your point. That Soldier2 doesn't want to go through with claiming a real crime happened because it might hurt his feelings or whatever. All seven people will be questioned, and if so much as one of them says that there were other activities as well, then any of those six people against Soldier1 would be hit with a 107! Oops, looks like Soldier2 just got himself (and potentially five other people) into trouble as well as Soldier1, just because he felt DADT was the more comfortable and safer route. I can see the appeal there.
gbaji wrote:
Everything else being equal, how can that not be true?
You don't care about anything be equal. If you were, you'd note that it was wrong for one group of people to suffer more than another for the exact same crime.
gbaji wrote:
And your claims to the contrary aside, it's a lot easier to prove that someone is ***, than to prove that someone is *** *and* sexually assaulted you. Think about it. One is a complete subset of the other.
Actually proving an assault is much easier than proving "Private Scruffy says Private Dink is ***." Especially when you add five people into your new argument. Call it a hunch after seven years of actual military police work. Smiley: smile

Also as an aside, I like how your new hypothetical has five people that were just standing around while the assault was taking place. Cuz, you know, them **** are going to attack no matter what! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#633 Oct 11 2011 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Is that really too hard for you to follow?

Oh, I have lots of experience in watching your furious backpedaling. This is nothing new Smiley: laugh

Quote:
No. It assumes that the likelihood of repeat assaults is similar among men and women. Why would you assume otherwise?

You mean, beyond the article you got the numbers from which talks about sustained and continual assaults upon women in the military?

Huh.

Quote:
While I'm just speculating

Well, that's the closest you'll get to admit to making stuff up, so congratulations.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#634 Oct 11 2011 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
I love Gbaji, his post always have a moral.

"If you don't know what you are talking about, use more words, it makes you look smarter."
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#635 Oct 11 2011 at 11:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:

I was referencing both. You're purposely trying to make a non existing difference. If you want to deny the fact that people can't openly talk about *** without repercussions, then so be it. Just don't project your ignorance unto others.


Why? DADT repeal has very, very little to do with fornication while on the job in the military. Talking about one's sexual orientation & getting kicked out for it is VASTLY different than getting kicked out for ******* on the job.

Can you talk about *** without repercussions in any & all situations while in the military? Probably not. But you can come out of the closet, if you're ***, & not get kicked out for it. Isn't progress swell?

A:
1.
Alma wrote:
So, if a woman can meet those standards, then why is she not allowed to participate?
Good question. I don't know the answer, do you?

2. Men have one standard for hair length & woman have another. Is it discrimination? Sure, but on a very small level that has more to do with traditional gender roles in our society than it does with keeping a minority down.

3. Comes with the territory (pun intended).

4 & 5. It's certainly discrimination against married homosexual couples, but should be rectified when DOMA is repealed. The military is an extension of the federal government, the fed doesn't recognize SSM, so until it does they can continue this practice. I don't like it, but it is what it is.

B- We have freedom of religion in this country & the US military does try & allow for it. Too bad for the atheists, scientoligists, & discordians. Presumably, you'd know this before signing up.

C- There are physical requirements to join the military. Does that discriminate against fat people? Sure, but it's a necessary requirement for military service. "Being straight" isn't a physical requirement, so that doesn't equate.

D- Who you are & where you come from is a deciding factor on what level of clearance you can get? Good.

Now please, focus, & tell me how heterosexual couples are openly discriminated against by DADT repeal.

Alma wrote:
No. The compromise was that no one was going to ask or pursue your sexuality, not that it was ok to be ***. Once again, if it were "ok", then you wouldn't be kicked out. There's a difference between being "openly ***" and ***. If SGT Smith was caught kissing another woman on the sly, that isn't the same as being "openly ***".


We're dancing in circles here. Let's look at this, logically; When DADT was implemented, it was a compromise to allow gays to serve provided they weren't open about it & their sexual orientation would not be investigated. Literally, this translates to, "If we don't ask you if you're *** & you don't tell us, then you can serve."

Ipso facto, it is a fact the *** folks COULD serve provided DADT was followed.

Alma wrote:
No where did I mention "civil unions". I'm talking about marriages. A heterosexual man is bound to the same marriage laws as a homosexual man. They are the same exact argument. I'm saying exactly what you're saying.According to your logic, the repeal of DADT is equal because it affects both sexes equally. That's the same argument that I've used for SSM. The difference is that I acknowledge the difference between equality and fairness. They are equal, but not fair.

You agree with me.


It's true that in the states that allow full on SSM (Mass. may be the only one, while the others have "Civil Unions") the marriage laws & benefits apply to both hetero & **** couples equally. In every other state, at the federal level, & in the military heterosexual couples get their marriage recognized & more benefits than homosexual couples. THIS IS A FACT.

I do not know what you mean by "they are the same argument", please clarify. You're NOT saying what I'm saying as until such a time that DOMA is overturned, hetero-marriages & *** marriages are SEPARATE & UNEQUAL. Sure, DOMA doesn't discriminate by gender, but it discriminates by sexual orientation.

Alma wrote:
How is that logical? Are you separated in the work office because of plumbing? What's the difference? How is sitting on a chair different from sitting on a chair?


Another false equivalency, really?

Alma wrote:
Read above. That is not a logical explanation. Our plumbing doesn't change outside the shower. So why are we segregated in the showers but not outside the shower?


Are you really this fucking dense? Modesty is CERTAINLY one of the reasons bathrooms are separated by gender, it is NOT & NEVER WILL BE the only reason. The plumbing in the separate facilities is CERTAINLY one of the other reasons bathrooms are still segregated by gender. Just because we're segregated by gender in the showers doesn't mean we HAVE to be separated outside of them. That's another false equivalency, you dumb fucking twat.

Alma wrote:
Because of DADT. How does anyone know that you're a couple? Many barracks forbid people of the opposite *** in there without being signed in and/or door being opened. If you're a ****, you can do whatever you want in your own privacy. A **** can request to change out roommates with his "battle buddy" and it CAN get approved. If his "battle buddy" is a female that is highly unlikely to happen.

That's how that's discrimination. I'm sorry if you can't see that.


This would NOT be discrimination against hetero couples, like DADT WAS discrimination against homosexuals. The above scenario would be a *** man working the system. I'm sorry if you can't see that.


____________________________
"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


#636 Oct 12 2011 at 7:04 AM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe is my hero.
____________________________
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
#637 Oct 12 2011 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Samira is my hero, because she doesn't talk to Alma.
____________________________
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

#638 Oct 12 2011 at 8:04 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,861 posts
Alma should be an hero.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#639 Oct 12 2011 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Samira is my hero, because she doesn't talk to Alma.

Samira doesn't talk to anyone Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#640 Oct 12 2011 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Samira is my hero, because she doesn't talk to Alma.

Samira doesn't talk to anyone Smiley: frown
Which includes Alma. Let's focus on what's important here.
____________________________
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

#641 Oct 12 2011 at 8:14 AM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe wrote:
Alma should be an hero.
He should be. Pencil pushers that never actually soldiered who think they know what is best for the rank and file should be honored for their atrociousness.
____________________________
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
#642 Oct 12 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,845 posts
My heroes have always been cowboys.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#643Almalieque, Posted: Oct 12 2011 at 1:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read my last two paragraphs above..
#644 Oct 12 2011 at 1:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Really though, it all depends on the political power and you know that. I'm not a Republican fan, but if they had the most influence, then it would have been fought. Given that Mr. Obama is anti-DADT, then it was possible. Do you think it was a coincidence that NOTHING happened in the 8 years of President Bush?

Nope. That doesn't mean what you think it does.

Quote:
So, please stop this pretending that "it didn't make sense", when it's nothing more than a political difference such as gun control, abortion, legalizing drugs, etc.

Again, doesn't mean what you think it does. Just because two sides hold different views, doesn't make each view equally justified or defensible.

Quote:
Read my last two paragraphs above

Read the text you quoted. I was referring to your notion that the President should be required to have military experience.

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 2:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#645 Oct 12 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Did you overlook the portion of me saying that I disagree with 95% of the stuff that's put out. Maybe in your career, the stuff said has made sense, but I have only experienced nothing but ignorant propaganda.

Here's just a small list of things that I've heard...

"Women can say no at any time" as opposed to "don't put yourself in a position where you might feel the need to say no"


Not that I'm shocked or anything, but apparently Alma thinks that if he's having *** with a girl, and she doesn't want to anymore, he gets to just plow through 'till he's good and satisfied.

Thankfully, he'll never find himself in that situation, because no girl will bed him anyway.


Learn to read? If you inferred that, then you need comprehension lessons.


Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Quote:


Belkira wrote:

Are you saying you're the backbone of the army? If so, we're in more trouble than I thought.



Uh no. NCO's are the backbone of the Army. They correct officers and assist in planning and then turn around and ensure that the Soldiers are executing the plan that the officers came up with. They are the connection between the Good Idea Fairy and Joe actually executing a mission.

Your statement was implying that the more and more I talk, the dumber and dumber I sound, so therefore I should be enlisted. That means you think very poorly of the enlisted, when in fact they are the executors that actually make things happen. Shame on you... Make fun of warrants, they're anti-social and never follow any rules Smiley: nod


That's an awful lot of inference there, chief. Mostly it's just the more you talk, the more I become convinced you have no idea what you're talking about (in terms of the military and "how things are" that is) and you just really want to convince us you're enlisted.

Having three in-laws that were in the military and hearing them talk about DADT I know that your insistence that you're right and we just don't get it is bullsh*t. So I wonder if you are really enlisted.


Edited, Oct 11th 2011 8:21pm by Belkira


?

What possibly makes you think that I don't know what I'm talking about? Why would I want to convince you to believe that I'm enlisted?

So, are you saying that I sound like your enlisted relatives, so therefore I sound "enlisted"?

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#646 Oct 12 2011 at 2:29 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
?

What possibly makes you think that I don't know what I'm talking about? Why would I want to convince you to believe that I'm enlisted?

So, are you saying that I sound like your enlisted relatives, so therefore I sound "enlisted"?



What I'm saying is that you take your opinions and pretend they hold true across the entire military. Knowing three other people who I trust and know for a fact they were not only enlisted in the mitary, but they have all served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, I know that you're full of crap. Knowing this, I find myself doubting whether or not your claims of being enlisted in the military are genuine.

And I'm sure you don't care whether I believe you or not.

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 3:30pm by Belkira
#647 Oct 12 2011 at 2:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Omega wrote:
Why? DADT repeal has very, very little to do with fornication while on the job in the military. Talking about one's sexual orientation & getting kicked out for it is VASTLY different than getting kicked out for @#%^ing on the job.

Can you talk about *** without repercussions in any & all situations while in the military? Probably not. But you can come out of the closet, if you're ***, & not get kicked out for it. Isn't progress swell?


You keep saying "On the job". What is that supposed to mean?

Omega wrote:
Good question. I don't know the answer, do you?


Because the military discriminates in more ways than just against homosexuals.

Omega wrote:
Men have one standard for hair length & woman have another. Is it discrimination? Sure, but on a very small level that has more to do with traditional gender roles in our society than it does with keeping a minority down.


Small role? Once again, you can't down play everything just to meet your criteria. You may have a closeted homosexual with long hair, ear rings, certain tattoos,etc. who has absolutely no intentions of coming out of the closet. How is this guy more discriminated against? What will more than likely prevent him from joining the military?

What's not a big deal to you doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Gender roles?!?!?!? Really? You do realize that traditional gender roles say that only men and women should "court" each other right? Oh, since you support gender roles, then you must support the reinstatement of DADT, since traditional gender roles don't support homosexuality.

Omega wrote:
3. Comes with the territory (pun intended).


What territory? Name me some jobs where a boss can say "Only married couples are authorized to have ***, any violators will be disciplined and possibly fired."

Omega wrote:

4 & 5. It's certainly discrimination against married homosexual couples, but should be rectified when DOMA is repealed. The military is an extension of the federal government, the fed doesn't recognize SSM, so until it does they can continue this practice. I don't like it, but it is what it is.


But they don't have to. They are CHOOSING to. It's a choice.

Omega wrote:
B- We have freedom of religion in this country & the US military does try & allow for it. Too bad for the atheists, scientoligists, & discordians. Presumably, you'd know this before signing up.


We have freedom of sexuality in this country and the US military does try and allow for it. Too bad for homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders and bisexuals. Presumably, you'd know this before signing up.

Omega wrote:
- There are physical requirements to join the military. Does that discriminate against fat people? Sure, but it's a necessary requirement for military service. "Being straight" isn't a physical requirement, so that doesn't equate.


How is it necessary if the "fat" person still meets all physical requirements? I guess you missed that part? I"m not talking about fat tubs of lard who can't run. I'm talking about big guys and women with a little bit of shape. They can meet the physical requirement but can still get treated like crap, even if they're under the fat% limit. Simply LOOKING fat is enough to catch havoc.

What's with you and "not equivalent"? The only thing that is equitable to discharging someone for being a homosexual is discharging someone for being a homosexual. Doing the same thing to a heterosexual is not the same. So, you're either arguing over the concept of discrimination or you're arguing specifically about homosexuality. You can't say discrimination against homosexuality is wrong simply because it's discrimination and then claim that every other form of discrimination doesn't "count" because it isn't the same.

If you're only argument is "it's discrimination", then you must also accept other forms of discrimination as equals. Having a ***** isn't a physical requirement for any task, yet you must have one to have certain jobs.

Omega wrote:
Who you are & where you come from is a deciding factor on what level of clearance you can get? Good.


Uhhhhh...You don't have to be related to Osama to be denied. One of my classmates had her clearance suspended because of something stupid her dad did a long time ago. Is that a smart thing? Maybe, but it has absolutely nothing to do with her and her ability to do her job. What about the other stuff that you left out? Being the Commander in chief? Being chosen a certain job because of your race/nationality/skin color?

Omega wrote:
Now please, focus, & tell me how heterosexual couples are openly discriminated against by DADT repeal.


Now please, focus. Stop ignoring everything that I've told you and tell me how discriminating is ok unless it affects a specific group?

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#648 Oct 12 2011 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
I didn't read all of your post, but as far as the "how many other jobs will fire you for having *** with someone other than your spouse," the majority of our clients have a "morality" clause in their contract and will fire someone for something like that. And I heard that one singer fired a guy for bringing a groupie back to his hotel room while he was married.

Just sayin'. If your company wants to project a "family friendly" image, I can easily see someone being fired for that sort of thing.
#649 Oct 12 2011 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Did you overlook the portion of me saying that I disagree with 95% of the stuff that's put out. Maybe in your career, the stuff said has made sense, but I have only experienced nothing but ignorant propaganda.

Here's just a small list of things that I've heard...

"Women can say no at any time" as opposed to "don't put yourself in a position where you might feel the need to say no"


Not that I'm shocked or anything, but apparently Alma thinks that if he's having *** with a girl, and she doesn't want to anymore, he gets to just plow through 'till he's good and satisfied.

Thankfully, he'll never find himself in that situation, because no girl will bed him anyway.


Learn to read? If you inferred that, then you need comprehension lessons.


How many times do people have to point out the disconnect between what you write and your intended meaning before you realize that you have a disability?

Of course, I was being tongue-in-cheek, but you really ought to see that there's a problem with what you wrote.

Let me try to guess at where the disconnect is. If you failed at the semantic level, it's in your usage of "as opposed to." That means "Do X instead of Y", in case you were unaware. As in, "Y" shouldn't happen. As in, they shouldn't say "Women can say no at any time."

But of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "Women can say no at any time." Now, you might feel that saying "don't put yourself in a position where you might feel the need to say no" is more important, but you certainly can't argue that it should supplant the former.

And as an aside: I'd say that even if you think that the latter message is more important, you'd still be wrong. Clearly, you really need to be made to understand how important it is for a woman to be able to say no at any time, because for some reason you seem to want to diminish that major point. And I've met my fair share of idiots like you, who don't get simple boundaries.

Women can say no at any time. There are a multitude of legitimate reasons that they might want have ***, then not want to have *** anymore in the middle of it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's a damned important right to have. It should be made clear, especially to folks like yourself. I don't know why anyone would argue otherwise, unless they had a (subconscious) resentment of women. Smiley: wink

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 4:58pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#650 Oct 12 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Omega wrote:
We're dancing in circles here. Let's look at this, logically; When DADT was implemented, it was a compromise to allow gays to serve provided they weren't open about it & their sexual orientation would not be investigated. Literally, this translates to, "If we don't ask you if you're *** & you don't tell us, then you can serve."

Ipso facto, it is a fact the *** folks COULD serve provided DADT was followed.


This is going into semantics because you don't want to ever admit to being wrong.

I'm not arguing that homosexuals couldn't serve, what I'm arguing is that it was OK for homosexuals to serve. You can and more than likely will be discharged for committing adultery. Just because you're not asked on a lie detector machine if you're cheating on your spouse doesn't mean that it is ok to commit adultery.

Prior to DADT, the military was unfairly targeting homosexuals by explicitly asking their personal lives. DADT made it so that your business was your business and unless you were unable to keep it to yourself, then you were left alone. It didn't mean that it was ok to cheat on your spouses because no was asking or pursuing. Else, you wouldn't be discharged for something that you are allowed to do.

Omega wrote:
It's true that in the states that allow full on SSM (Mass. may be the only one, while the others have "Civil Unions") the marriage laws & benefits apply to both hetero & **** couples equally. In every other state, at the federal level, & in the military heterosexual couples get their marriage recognized & more benefits than homosexual couples. THIS IS A FACT.

I do not know what you mean by "they are the same argument", please clarify. You're NOT saying what I'm saying as until such a time that DOMA is overturned, hetero-marriages & *** marriages are SEPARATE & UNEQUAL. Sure, DOMA doesn't discriminate by gender, but it discriminates by sexual orientation.


We are saying the same thing because I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT "HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES". I'm specifically talking about heterosexual laws equally discriminate against heterosexuals as they do homosexuals because they are not based on sexuality but ***.

That is exactly what you said on sharing rooms. Men and women are separated based on gender/*** not sexuality so everyone is affected equally.

The difference is that I acknowledge the difference of equality and fairness. In the case of sharing rooms, I argued fairness not equality. In the case of SSM, people are arguing for equality when the current laws are EQUAL, just not fair to certain couples.

A homosexual man is bound to the same marriage laws as a heterosexual man. Your sexuality is irrelevant, it is purely based off of your ***. That is exactly what the criteria is for rooming Soldiers together, creating bathrooms and creating showers. It's exactly what you've been arguing this whole time. We discriminate based on *** and gender. That's exactly right and that's no different with marriages. A homosexual man can marry a ******* and can receive the same exact rights as any heterosexual couple. They are not denied ANYTHING for their sexuality.

Omega wrote:

Another false equivalency, really?

Another empty answer, really?

Just answer the question. If we segregate by *** due to plumbing, then where does it start and where does it end? Why are the showers segregated but not the office? During racial segregation, EVERYTHING was segregated, why is it only in rooms and places where you're uncovered?

Oh, that's right, because it's all about modesty. Why are there toilets inside stalls and dividers in urinals in the bathrooms? People want privacy and they assume that people of the same *** has no interest in their plumbing because its the same.

Omega wrote:
Are you really this ******* dense? Modesty is CERTAINLY one of the reasons bathrooms are separated by gender, it is NOT & NEVER WILL BE the only reason. The plumbing in the separate facilities is CERTAINLY one of the other reasons bathrooms are still segregated by gender. Just because we're segregated by gender in the showers doesn't mean we HAVE to be separated outside of them. That's another false equivalency, you dumb ******* ****.


And yet you have failed to provide any reason outside of modesty. I'm curious on why you think that I was implying that we SHOULD be segregated outside the shower. I'm just pointing out to the fact that it has nothing to do with the simple fact that we have different plumbing, but modesty.

Omega wrote:
This would NOT be discrimination against hetero couples, like DADT WAS discrimination against homosexuals. The above scenario would be a *** man working the system. I'm sorry if you can't see that.


So not allowing SSM IS NOT discrimination then, since that same *** man can "work the system" and get married to a woman and receive benefits? I'm glad that you agree with me.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#651 Oct 12 2011 at 3:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
What territory? Name me some jobs where a boss can say "Only married couples are authorized to have ***, any violators will be disciplined and possibly fired."

Clergy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help