Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#652 Oct 12 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
Jophiel wrote:

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

Explain

Jophiel wrote:
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.


Didn't imply that it did. Just pointing out that with the opposite notion that just because one side "won", then it must be right. Your argument is solely based on that it changed so therefore it must be right

Johiel wrote:

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

I knew that, but for some reason I started thinking something else by the end of your sentence. I haven't met too many military personnel who disagree with that notion. This former military person at work went so far that he believes that you should serve in order to be considered a citizen and be allowed to vote. I told him that was dumb, but I do think it should be a requirement in order to be labeled "Commander in chief". You know, kind of like any other CEO, president, manager, etc should have, experience.


Belkira wrote:
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.


First, I'm not nor have I ever said that I was enlisted.

Second, you have not said any one thing that I have said to discredit me in being in the Army.

Third, "pretend to hold true across the entire military". The military WAS FORCED to remove of DADT. If the military truly felt against DADT, it would have done itself without any push. This is especially true since it has always been a hot topic for some years now.

Belkira wrote:
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.
____________________________


I was referring to SINGLE people having **** with other SINGLE people, not adultery.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#653Almalieque, Posted: Oct 12 2011 at 3:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read above. If you have an impressionable mind to where you can't stand up for yourself, then you don't need to be putting yourself out there. The sad fact is, you will just end up as a statistic. Should a man stop when you say stop? Of course. Will that always happen? No.
#654 Oct 12 2011 at 3:50 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
I can lead the idiot to water, but I can't make it drink.

PS: There are some serious gems in his response, if anyone is feeling masochistic enough to read it. I can't cull them easily on my phone, though.

What a **** cretin.

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 5:54pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#655 Oct 12 2011 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,649 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
PS: There are some serious gems in his response, if anyone is feeling masochistic enough to read it.
I'll pass. Already fell for it once. I will say I'm amused at his admittance that NCOs are there to correct Officers, all the while arguing with an NCO working on correcting him. If anyone thought my general dislike of officers was irrational, consider that exhibit A.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#656 Oct 12 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Put another way: Soldier1 in shower plays grab-ass 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


Huh? Communication need not be verbal. A "proposition" can (and often does) take a purely physical form.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
He's not lying in said hypothetical.
He actually was until you changed it to both an assault and a conversation.


The assault by definition is an admission of homosexuality by the person doing the assaulting. Are you really going to play word games here?

Quote:
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.


Do I really need to spell out every step of the process? Sorry, I assumed you had sufficient imagination to see how this would play out. Soldier1 engages in some sort of overt sexual action towards soldier2 in the shower. Details are irrelevant, but it's sufficient to be called a sexual assault. Soldier2 *could* charge soldier1 with that assault, but perhaps because of embarrassment, he'd rather the details of what happened that day not become a matter of public record.

Instead, he tells his immediate superior about it out of official channels. He says that soldier1 is **** and assaulted him. His superior then talks to soldier1 about the accusation. Soldier1 is given the option of either accepting a discharge for revealing his homosexuality to other soldiers *or* facing criminal charges for sexual assault, which may result in jail time and dishonorable discharge.

Take away DADT, and the only option is to file the assault charge. And if we can assume that this whole scenario rests on solder2 being hesitant to file such charges openly, we can also assume that some examples of soldier2 will just choose to stay silent instead of doing anything. DADT provides a method of resolving the problem without ruining anyone's life. That's the point you seem to keep missing here.


Quote:
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 gay, because that's your point.


Sigh. I'm not detailing a single event. I'm giving a broad set of circumstances which may apply to the question at hand. Stop being so literal. It's unlikely that soldier1 progresses to overt sexual assault just on a whim, and it's likely that such behavior will continue over time until sufficient numbers of people have suffered or witnessed it that it can't be ignored anymore.

What I was getting at is that if one soldiers word isn't sufficient to cause this to happen, then eventually more guys will be walking up to their supervisor reporting the same sort of thing from the same soldier. That sort of behavior tends to progress, right? So if the first guy can't get his claim to stick, then after the second and the third and the fourth and the fifth guys all report the same behavior in the same soldier, *eventually* someone will step in and do anything.


And under DADT, an option is to allow the soldier in question to be discharged under DADT. Absent it, unless the behavior changes the only option is to file formal charges. We can debate which course is better, but it absolutely does remove options and would presumably require that more incidences occur before something can be done.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#657 Oct 12 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Good
******
30,642 posts
Almalieque wrote:
First, I'm not nor have I ever said that I was enlisted.


Are you in the military or aren't you? Are you a civilian working for the military? Or are you in the Army? Perhaps I'm using the word "enlisted" incorrectly. I thought it meant to voluntarily enter into the military.

Almalieque wrote:
Second, you have not said any one thing that I have said to discredit me in being in the Army.


Ok.

Almalieque wrote:
Third, "pretend to hold true across the entire military". The military WAS FORCED to remove of DADT. If the military truly felt against DADT, it would have done itself without any push. This is especially true since it has always been a hot topic for some years now.


Not what I meant, but whatever.

Almalieque wrote:
I was referring to SINGLE people having **** with other SINGLE people, not adultery.


Ah, I misunderstood, my mistake. However, that would still apply to the morality clause in our clients contracts. They're in the Christian music business. If you're fucking people when you go to a show, you're not going to last long in that industry.

#658 Oct 12 2011 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,649 posts
gbaji wrote:
The assault by definition is an admission of homosexuality by the person doing the assaulting. Are you really going to play word games here?
Might be a game for you, because you don't understand, but it's actually my job and these things come up. You seem to be under the misconception that UCMJ is the same as civil law, and that's laughable for me but I understand that you don't get it. All you have to work on is how it works in a civilian court, whereas I have military law experience and knowledge. I don't blame you, you're just an ill informed child as far as this topic is concerned.

By UCMJ definition, for DADT to take effect it requires the admission that the soldier claim he was homosexual. Grabbing your **** in the shower isn't an admittance of being gay. Grabbing a **** and saying "Hey, want me to suck it," is hilarious and in my opinion **** as fuck but, by UCMJ definition, is not admittance of being homosexual. Not only that, by your own hypothetical, the soldier who was assaulted would not mention the assault anyway because I guess it would make him feel icky. Your whole point is that instead of mentioning the assault he would say admitted to being gay. If you remove the assault from the equation, then you don't have the admittance you thought it proved. Really, these are simple questions any investigator would ask.
Investigation wrote:
"I have reason to believe Private Scruffy is homosexual. He admitted it to me in the shower."
"What happened?"
"He said he was homosexual."
"How did he say this?"
"He ... just did."
"So he verbalized his sexual preference to you?"
"Yes."
"That's all?"
"Yes."
Even in civilian jurisdictions that wouldn't fly and you're ignorant if you think it'd magically work in the military. Like I said before, it's your **** scenario, don't blame me for knowing the ins-and-outs better than you.
gbaji wrote:
Details are irrelevant,
Again, no. In cases of sexual assault, harassment, and previously DADT, details were very relevant. Do you not realize what you're describing is a crime? Solving those tends to require accurate details. We're talking about people's lives here. It takes a little more than "Private Scruffy says you're gay" to ruin one of those.
gbaji wrote:
Soldier2 *could* charge soldier1 with that assault, but perhaps because of embarrassment, he'd rather the details of what happened that day not become a matter of public record.
Soldier2 is an idiot. I'd rather Soldier2 be a little embarrassed and a crime be properly punished than not. Too bad for you the military actually agrees with me on that as well.

Not only that, but are you so confused by civilian law that you don't even know that matters of sexual assault aren't automatically a matter of public record? You think under UCMJ the soldier that was assaulted is going to have their name and face plastered all over the place? Really?
gbaji wrote:
Stop being so literal.
We're talking about issues that deal with peoples lives. I'm pretty sure even on the episode of Law & Order you saw made that apparent. The "broad situation" argument is convenient for you, though. Whenever you're proven wrong you can narrow it slightly to alter it as needed. Demonstrated, literally in this very conversation.
gbaji wrote:
Take away DADT, and the only option is to file the assault charge.
You've yet to explain how "Not punishing a sexual predator to the fullest extent of the law" is a good thing. Him choosing to stay silent after an assault makes him an idiot, plain and simple.
gbaji wrote:
What I was getting at is that if one soldiers word isn't sufficient to cause this to happen, then eventually more guys will be walking up to their supervisor reporting the same sort of thing from the same soldier.
So now he is a repeat offender? I notice that the narrower you make your scenario, the less DADT is showing to be effective. Or are you saying the other soldiers are lying just because they have a feeling that the offender is saying it then they might as well jump on the bandwagon?
gbaji wrote:
And under DADT, an option is to allow the soldier in question to be discharged under DADT. Absent it,
Absent it the option is for Private Scruffy to man up and do the right thing, and the offending soldier be dishonorably discharged, jailed, and fined five ways from Sunday. Yeah, I can see why you'd want DADT to remain in place. A sexual predator gets a slap on the wrist while Private Scruffy isn't embarrassed! Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 8:38pm 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.
#659gbaji, Posted: Oct 12 2011 at 6:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Or to make it obvious to others he is serving with. It prohibited being "openly gay". WTF do you think that means? That said homosexual had to sign a form saying he was homosexual? If that's the case, then why the **** repeal it? It's toothless. For someone who claims this is his job you really seem to be obtuse about it.
#660 Oct 12 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,649 posts
gbaji wrote:
Or to make it obvious to others he is serving with.
Could you please stop trying to tell the Military Police Investigator what constitutes, and what doesn't, as an admittance to a crime? Do you tell a regular cop he's wrong because his radar gun says you were speeding but your speedometer said you weren't? Again, even if your definition were correct, it would still not help Private Scruffy because your entire argument is that he's too embarrassed to talk about the assault. If he doesn't talk about the silent assault, then what is his claim? All he's left with at this point is to say Private Dink verbalized it. In your scenario the assault doesn't exist because Private Scruffy refuses to talk about it, therefore the theoretical "physical admittance" is missing as well.
gbaji wrote:
If said soldier assaults another soldier a means to deal with it is to have that soldier admit to being **** and accept discharge under DADT. He *chooses* to do this rather than face formal charges.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, so excuse me if I got it wrong here. No, if the sexual predator is charged with the assault he doesn't get to play the DADT card and take the lesser sentence. Dishonorable, jail time, and fines are the minimum. The maximum under DADT would be Dishonorable, and even that is under special circumstances (Like, you know, stupidly coming out while DADT was still in effect on national television)
gbaji wrote:
Take away DADT and the only alternative is to file those formal charges.
I thought I was very very clear about pointing out that filing formal charges is the better option for everyone.
gbaji wrote:
We can speculate about what effect that has,
Why would I speculate on something I witness first hand? Smiley: dubious

And I'm not saying you're wrong about the soldier being more hesitant. Male and female soldiers alike tend to go through a period where they actually feel it's their fault for being assaulted. They do go quiet about it. These are people who are trained to face other people with guns and explosives. It's a nightmare to deal with. Being attacked by someone who's supposed to be there to protect you is a horrific experience. I hate to play the "trust me" card on an internet forum since at the end of the day it's all text, but there you have it. Your own scenario is a negative for DADT; it gives a window for the predator to not be punished as severely as he or she should be. It isn't protecting the victim, it's protecting the predator.

Not to mention the hilarious (and as it turned out completely ineffective) tactic of soldiers who, for whatever reason, thought they wouldn't be deployed so they try to use DADT as a means to get out. I don't know about you, but I feel taxes that go to Defense spending is already ridiculous, giving nervous children a free out and wasting all the tax money used to train and pay those individuals sounds wrong to me. Like I said though. It doesn't work, it just makes everything between everyone involved awkward.

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 9:29pm 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.
#661gbaji, Posted: Oct 12 2011 at 7:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) From a law enforcement perspective, you may be right. But from a "get this guy out of the military so he doesn't do this to more soldiers" perspective, you're wrong. DADT provided a method for exactly those soldiers who would be hesitant to come forward with formal charges to still "do something" that might result in the discharge of the offender. Take it away and IMO things are worse, not better.
#662 Oct 12 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#663 Oct 12 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Revolving Door Inspector
Avatar
*****
12,726 posts
I just want to mention that anyone that uses the term "smh" should be a banned. I saw that in some earlier page in this Almagay thread. By Alma.

The rest is up to the Admins.

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 10:10pm by Exodus
____________________________
FFXI: Exodus @ San d'Oria since November 19, 2003, Siren Server
FFXIV: Turk Kalahai @ Gridania, Balmung Server
Rift: Kalahai @ Sanctum, Faeblight Server
Exo @ YouTube | Exo @ Tumblr | Exo @ Twitter | Cheese
#664 Oct 12 2011 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,649 posts
gbaji wrote:
Are you being deliberately dense or something?
I'm being deliberately calm because you simply don't feel like understanding. You have this incorrect notion in your head and you'll be damned to admit your theory is in error even when someone who knows better says otherwise. The biggest flaw is your insistence that the "admittance" wouldn't be brought up because Private Scruffy is too embarrassed to bring it up. If he refuses to talk about the sexual assault (which is your "admittance,") then there is no admittance. If someone punches you, and you refuse to talk about it and instead allude to a vague "He said he was going to hit me" then there is no battery. You might not think details are important so you believe saying whatever you want and not being able to connect them is a viable argument, but in real life those details are vital.
gbaji wrote:
But if a cop tries to insist that it's not illegal to rob a bank, but only illegal to admit to robbing a bank, I'd conclude that he's a freaking moron.
But you have no qualms about an actual sexual assault taking place with the only consequence being a possible slap on the wrist. Makes another situation you were involved with here kind of more interesting. Smiley: smile
gbaji wrote:
I've already explained multiple times exactly how things will happen.
And I've corrected you multiple times how things actually happen.
gbaji wrote:
Maybe you need to get out and talk to people who aren't military police a bit more often and see how things are really done.
You actually tried this? You're saying I have less experience with people in the military than you? Are you fucking serious? I can't stop laughing! Here's a detail that I guess you know since you're far more experienced with the going-ons of military life than me! Those officers that are quietly told of a DADT offense was going on? They have to go through Military Police and JAG before they can just have the offensive soldier kicked out.
gbaji wrote:
Formal criminal action is a last resort and honestly reflects poorly on an officer when it happens.
You know what else reflects poorly on an officer? When a sexual predator who only got a slap on the wrist gets caught being a sexual predator outside the unit. Then we get to question the officer, ask him if there was any indicators of the behavior. Think he'll admit there was possible indicators and risk his own career or not? The cases I've dealt with say they won't risk themselves, but seeing as how you're the source expert here ...
gbaji wrote:
I thought I'd explained this.
You say this a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means.
gbaji wrote:
From a law enforcement perspective, you may be right.
There isn't a "might." This isn't politics, you can't spin it.
gbaji wrote:
But from a "get this guy out of the military so he doesn't do this to more soldiers" perspective, you're wrong.
Both ways "gets this guy out of the military so he doesn't do this to more soldiers." Your way lets Private Scruffy not be embarrassed. My way also "gets this guy out of society so he doesn't do it to civilians as well." It also "takes back a significant amount of tax payer dollars."
gbaji wrote:
There is no longer a middle path they can pursue.
There should never have been a middle ground. You agreed: a crime was committed and said crime should be punished. The problem is you think that under DADT a commander could just dismiss someone because people said that he said he was **** (again, remember, your argument was that the actual assault wouldn't be mentioned because it was too embarrassing) During the commander's investigation questions will be asked. A lot of questions. "Well, he kind of acts gay" doesn't work. "Well, he said he was gay" doesn't work. Holy **** just Youtube "Army Steel Ding Dong" and you'll get several very **** appearing scenes (0:46ish has one guy placing his hand over another's crotch guard, and 2:29 is beyond questionable). Those soldiers didn't get kicked out. There's another out for our predator, by the way. "I was under the impression we were just goofing during all that talk and dance, sir."

I should point out that in the seventeen years of DADT, about 13,000 people were silently discharged, and cost you and me as tax payers roughly $200,000,000 in a ten year period within that. Sorry I don't have exact stats. I just got the first google link. Now, hopefully both of us realize that a fraction of both numbers is about sexual assaults similar to your ill fated scenario. I don't like those numbers. Hell, just the existence of DADT has cost us TWO HUNDRED FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS. And you're for this policy because you don't want Private Scruffy to be embarrassed?

You know what's the most frightening? The fact that you're right that some soldiers used DADT instead of doing the right thing. You know what happens now that DADT has been repealed? Those sexual deviants can legally return to duty. So Private Scruffy is in for a bad time now, especially if he continues to be too embarrassed over being molested. I don't want that. I want my soldiers to be safe. Not having this information hurts me, it hurts my soldiers, and it hurts the military. I can't say "Oh, you were discharged for DADT? Nope, can't sign up!" I could say "Oh, you have a felony for sexual misconduct? Go fuck yourself." And I'm telling you this as a Recruiter what I can, and cannot do. That frightens the ever loving fuck out of me.

Can you come up with a better reason to keep DADT other than "It won't embarrass Private Scruffy," please?

Edited, Oct 12th 2011 10:48pm 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.
#665 Oct 12 2011 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
What Joph and Exo said. Gbaji arguing with lolgaxe is priceless and yes, smh should be banned and anyone that uses it should be shot.
#666 Oct 12 2011 at 9:19 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm being deliberately calm because you simply don't feel like understanding. You have this incorrect notion in your head and you'll be damned to admit your theory is in error even when someone who knows better says otherwise.


This all sounds so...familiar...

Smiley: grin
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#667 Oct 12 2011 at 11:01 PM Rating: Good
***
1,877 posts
Interesting little news story NPR did on this subject. You can read and/or listen to the story here.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#668 Oct 12 2011 at 11:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:

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


While you're working. I understand that sometimes the military can be a 24/7 job. Like my job, you'd get in trouble for fucking someone while "working".

Alma wrote:

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


Agreed, but this doesn't answer the question as to why in the specific case of "if a woman can meet those standards, then why is she not allowed to participate?" There has to be a specific reason for this discrimination, the answer to the question is not "because the military discriminates". I don't know the answer, nor do you apparently. I'm ok with that, as it doesn';t apply to the topic of DADT.

Alma wrote:

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.


Do you know what a false equivalency even is? I kinda thought you did, but the more you post the more false
equivalencies you make. While it is TRUE that the military discriminates against men who want to have long hair by allowing woman to have their hair longer than men, the reasoning behind why they allow woman to have longer hair isn't simply to disenfranchise men. Like in the professional world, the military has specific grooming standards for men & specific grooming standards for woman. Like in the professional world, a closeted homosexual would need to conform to the grooming standards of the job they apply for & would have to do the same to join the military.

Now, just because I'm ok with separate grooming standards for men & woman (which are based off of traditional gender roles) DOES NOT MEAN & WILL NEVER MEAN I'M OK WITH DISCRIMINATION DUE TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION. These are two very different things & insisting that if I support one thing I HAVE to support another is ludicrous. You, sir, are ludicrous for implying it.

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


Clergy, some political positions, the military, camp...

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.


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


Who is the "they" you are referring too? What are "they choosing to" [do]? What choice are "they" making? Please do try & use complete sentences, when you don't it's really hard to decipher your drivel.

Alma wrote:
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.


Not anymore! Homosexuals, transgenders, and bisexuals are now free to serve openly. Hurray progress!!!

Alma wrote:
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.


If you look fat I'm sure you'll get sh*t from a drill instructor even if you're under the fat % limit, but you can't get kicked out if you meet the requirements, correct?

Alma wrote:
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.


There are essentially, 4 sexual orientations possible: Gay, Straight, Bi, or Asexual. I am arguing against discrimination based upon one's sexual orientation, not against "all" discrimination. Whether or not other forms of discrimination by the military is right or wrong DOES NOT equate to just discriminating by sexual orientation. You bring up good examples as to why woman should be able to serve in full combat roles, but have yet to supply any examples as to why it's ok to discriminate against a particular sexual orientation.

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


One's sexual orientation has nothing to do with their ability to serve in the military, therefore it is wrong to discriminate solely on one's sexual orientation in the military.

Alma wrote:
They (Homosexuals) are not denied ANYTHING for their sexuality


From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Outside of the full legalization of SSM, homosexuals are not treated as equals & are denied their liberty & pursuit of happiness solely because of the sexual orientation they were born with. This is wrong & goes against everything the United States is supposed to stand for.

Alma wrote:
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.


Plumbing & modesty are both reasons. You said "comfort" was the sole reason. Therefore, you are wrong.
Alma wrote:

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.


Another false equivalent & another opportunity you squandered answering the question as to how heterosexual couples are discriminated by DADT repeal.

Any chance I can get you to answer that? How about how DADT has effected you & why it is you seem to oppose **** rights? Varrus, at least, uses the religious excuse. Sure, he's a hypocrite because he thinks being **** is morally wrong because of his bible yet his bible also tells him to not fornicate outside of marriage & he chooses to do that one anyway.

However, to quote one of my favorite shows on TV atm, Boardwalk Empire, "We all have to decide how much sin we can live with."

Listen, I'm done beating around the bush. Here's the deal; when it comes to woman in combat, the military DOES have some justification to discriminate based upon gender (A woman in combat, for example, may not be as strong or as fast as a man). What you have to prove, somehow, is that there IS justification to exclude homosexuals for a the same reason. That's how they can equate, dumbshit.

Because the military discriminates for other reasons IS NOT justification to discriminate based upon one's sexual orientation. Get it now?

SO please, give me some reason that you feel it is ok for the military to discriminate based upon sexual orientation BESIDES "because they discriminate for other things". It can even be your old fallback, "because I'd be uncomfortable around **** men." Granted, that is NOT justification to disenfranchise homosexuals, but it'll at least give me some insight as to why you feel the way you do about queers.







Edited, Oct 13th 2011 6:45am 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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#669 Oct 13 2011 at 3:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
i have such a big **** for Gaxe this morning.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#670 Oct 13 2011 at 7:55 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts

lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
PS: There are some serious gems in his response, if anyone is feeling masochistic enough to read it.
I'll pass. Already fell for it once. I will say I'm amused at his admittance that NCOs are there to correct Officers, all the while arguing with an NCO working on correcting him. If anyone thought my general dislike of officers was irrational, consider that exhibit A.


Yes, NCO's correct officers on how to do their job, not on the meaning of life. You noted an error and I fixed that error. I'm not sure what else you want me to say.



Belkira wrote:


Are you in the military or aren't you? Are you a civilian working for the military? Or are you in the Army? Perhaps I'm using the word "enlisted" incorrectly. I thought it meant to voluntarily enter into the military.


I realized your confusion on that last post, I just wanted you to realize the irony in the fact that you don't even know the difference between enlisting in the military vs commissioning. Yet, you have the audacity to claim that I don't know anything about the military!! lol Silly Belly.

Belkira wrote:
Ok.


So, are you going to provide anything? That's like me saying that I don't believe you're from TN because I have 3 close friends from TN. WTF does that mean?

Quote:
Not what I meant, but whatever.


What did you mean?

Belkira wrote:
Ah, I misunderstood, my mistake. However, that would still apply to the morality clause in our clients contracts. They're in the Christian music business. If you're **** people when you go to a show, you're not going to last long in that industry.


Jophile wrote:
Clergy.


Now ask yourself this. Do those professions discriminate against and/or support homosexuality? I never said none others existed, just pointing out the fact of it being a rare minority.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#671 Oct 13 2011 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Now ask yourself this. Do those professions discriminate against and/or support homosexuality? I never said none others existed, just pointing out the fact of it being a rare minority.
How convenient that you exclude the part where Belkira states any family friendly business could do so as it fits into the image they want to portray.
____________________________
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

#672 Oct 13 2011 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Now ask yourself this. Do those professions discriminate against and/or support homosexuality?

Depends on the faith/sect. There's various Protestant faiths that allow homosexual clergy members. There's other faiths which do not.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#673 Oct 13 2011 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
How convenient that you exclude the part where Belkira states any family friendly business could do so as it fits into the image they want to portray.

I'm imagine most businesses could institute such a morality clause if they wanted, there's just nothing in it for them and no good way to assure compliance.

There was a teacher a year or so back who was fired from her private (Christian) school for getting pregnant prior to her wedding as said pregnancy was evidence of premarital canoodling. She was suing over it but I couldn't find anything about the case since then, only that a judge ruled to allow the suit to proceed. There's other factors to the lawsuit though; namely the teacher is claiming she was discriminated against for being pregnant (which is illegal), not directly about the morality argument.

Also, "canoodling" is in the Firefox dictionary.

Edited, Oct 13th 2011 9:21am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#674 Oct 13 2011 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Now ask yourself this. Do those professions discriminate against and/or support homosexuality?

Depends on the faith/sect. There's various Protestant faiths that allow homosexual clergy members. There's other faiths which do not.
Those that even marry two homosexuals, to each other.
____________________________
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

#675 Oct 13 2011 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
******
30,642 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:


Are you in the military or aren't you? Are you a civilian working for the military? Or are you in the Army? Perhaps I'm using the word "enlisted" incorrectly. I thought it meant to voluntarily enter into the military.


I realized your confusion on that last post, I just wanted you to realize the irony in the fact that you don't even know the difference between enlisting in the military vs commissioning. Yet, you have the audacity to claim that I don't know anything about the military!! lol Silly Belly.


That would make sense if I were claiming to know more than you.

Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Ok.


So, are you going to provide anything? That's like me saying that I don't believe you're from TN because I have 3 close friends from TN. WTF does that mean?


I wasn't planning on it.

Almalieque wrote:
Quote:
Not what I meant, but whatever.


What did you mean?


I don't really care to get into it with you, honestly.



Edited, Oct 13th 2011 12:14pm by Belkira
#676 Oct 13 2011 at 12:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Quote:
Not what I meant, but whatever.


What did you mean?


I don't really care to get into it with you, honestly.

Yay! She can be taught!
#677 Oct 13 2011 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
Ok, after scanning this thread for the post part, I have a question: what exactly *is* the difference between an officer and an NCO?
____________________________
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.
#678 Oct 13 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
one is commissioned, one is not.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#679 Oct 13 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,649 posts
An officer is essentially a military politician. The only reason they still exist within armed forces world over is because of an ancient biblical law (which is currently being toted as "laws of war") that basically says you can't go to war without a small group of people designated as the "leader." It has little to do with actual leadership. Just the designation as such.

The only ones I pretty much automatically respect are pilots and medics.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#680 Oct 13 2011 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Revolving Door Inspector
Avatar
*****
12,726 posts
What about someone who is a medic and a pilot? Imagine flying a plane while stitching someone up AT THE SAME TIME. I bet he'd get mad kudos.
____________________________
FFXI: Exodus @ San d'Oria since November 19, 2003, Siren Server
FFXIV: Turk Kalahai @ Gridania, Balmung Server
Rift: Kalahai @ Sanctum, Faeblight Server
Exo @ YouTube | Exo @ Tumblr | Exo @ Twitter | Cheese
#681 Oct 13 2011 at 11:25 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Now ask yourself this. Do those professions discriminate against and/or support homosexuality? I never said none others existed, just pointing out the fact of it being a rare minority.
How convenient that you exclude the part where Belkira states any family friendly business could do so as it fits into the image they want to portray.


I didn't leave that out. The point was that any organization that has rules against premarital **** probably doesn't support homosexuality either. Furthermore, that organization probably has a lot of other discriminatory rules and regulations that support some list of morals.

Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Now ask yourself this. Do those professions discriminate against and/or support homosexuality?

Depends on the faith/sect. There's various Protestant faiths that allow homosexual clergy members. There's other faiths which do not.


Read above.

Belkira wrote:

That would make sense if I were claiming to know more than you.


Nope. If you know less than me, then how can you call me out for not knowing anything about the military? You would have to at least know just as much as me in order to do that. That is, unless you know something in particular, maybe from your enlisted relatives. If so, then what is it?

Belkira wrote:

I wasn't planning on it.


Of course you weren't, because you have nothing to say other than you have 3 close enlisted relatives. You have nothing to provide to actually support your claim.

Belkira wrote:

I don't really care to get into it with you, honestly.


Sure.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#682 Oct 13 2011 at 11:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
Debalic wrote:
Ok, after scanning this thread for the post part, I have a question: what exactly *is* the difference between an officer and an NCO?


The real difference is the following.

Short version: NCO's execute the plan; Officers create the plan

NCOs are non-commissioned officers who enlisted in the military to do a specific job. As a NCO, you are a leader and a personnel manager who ensures that everyone and everything is to standard. Given their previous experience as a junior enlisted (private, specialist,etc), they have a good understanding of how stuff is supposed to be done. They then take that knowledge to assist the Officer in making any plans.

Officers are leaders that are responsible for the planning. At the end of the day, the officer is ultimately responsible for any action that has occurred under his/her command. Officers wear multiple hats and are not trained to do any one task, but be able to LEAD over any task. This is why officers are often made fun of for not knowing anything, because they are not trained to do one task or group of tasks like enlisted are.

*edit* hence why lolGAXE probably likes pilots, because they are specifically trained to fly aircraft x.

The overall concept is that you can't plan and execute. If you try to do that, you will eventually fail. LolGaxe is just expressing his dislike towards officers as many NCOs do. The bottom line is, we can't take away either groups and be successful.

Edited, Oct 14th 2011 8:36am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#683Almalieque, Posted: Oct 14 2011 at 12:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Omega,
#684 Oct 14 2011 at 4:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
I accidentally overlooked your post, I'll respond later


Unless you can magically figure out how discrimination solely based upon one's sexual orientation is logically justifiable, I'd rather you didn't.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#685 Oct 14 2011 at 5:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Alma wrote:
I accidentally overlooked your post, I'll respond later


Unless you can magically figure out how discrimination solely based upon one's sexual orientation is logically justifiable, I'd rather you didn't.

Icky.
#686 Oct 14 2011 at 5:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
The point was that any organization that has rules against premarital **** probably doesn't support homosexuality either

Again, some do and some don't. To pick a single example, the Episcopal Church allows for the ordination of homosexual clergy. They also believe that **** should be within the confines of marriage. They require homosexual clergy members to be in lifelong, committed monogamous relationships in lieu of a state-approved marriage because state-approved marriage is not an option in most states.

Acceptance of homosexuality doesn't preclude "a lot of other discriminatory rules and regulations that support some list of morals".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#687 Oct 14 2011 at 6:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
So if we let teh gays be married, the problems go away, right?

Excellent, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Now about those taxes...
____________________________
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
#688 Oct 14 2011 at 6:20 AM Rating: Excellent
We should tax **** marriages.
____________________________
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
#689 Oct 14 2011 at 6:27 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
I've got it!!
____________________________
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
#690 Oct 14 2011 at 11:03 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,949 posts
I'll answer these first

Omegavegeta wrote:
Alma wrote:
I accidentally overlooked your post, I'll respond later


Unless you can magically figure out how discrimination solely based upon one's sexual orientation is logically justifiable, I'd rather you didn't.


There is no magic. I already explained to you in post 206 how. If you're so delusional where you think it's acceptable to discriminate every other single thing about a person, sex, skin color, nationality, weight, height, religion, etc. in the "land of the free" but there is not one single scenario where it is logical to discriminate against sexuality, then the fault is at you.

Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The point was that any organization that has rules against premarital **** probably doesn't support homosexuality either

Again, some do and some don't. To pick a single example, the Episcopal Church allows for the ordination of homosexual clergy. They also believe that **** should be within the confines of marriage. They require homosexual clergy members to be in lifelong, committed monogamous relationships in lieu of a state-approved marriage because state-approved marriage is not an option in most states.

Acceptance of homosexuality doesn't preclude "a lot of other discriminatory rules and regulations that support some list of morals".


..... Reread my point... The key word is "PROBABLY". That doesn't mean 100% all of the time. Unless the organizations you speak of make up the majority of overall such organization, then my claim remains valid. Now you're speaking of a very limited representation.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#691 Oct 14 2011 at 12:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, so it matters when it works for you and doesn't matter when it doesn't. As long as we're agreed that acceptance of homosexuality doesn't preclude "a lot of other discriminatory rules and regulations that support some list of morals" and vice versa, I have no idea what your point was supposed to be.

If we're not agreed, I'd recommend that you re-read the last couple posts to see where you're wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#692 Oct 14 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
There is no magic. I already explained to you in post 206 how. If you're so delusional where you think it's acceptable to discriminate every other single thing about a person, sex, skin color, nationality, weight, height, religion, etc. in the "land of the free" but there is not one single scenario where it is logical to discriminate against sexuality, then the fault is at you.
Sure there may be a situation where you can discriminate based on sexuality. However the ability to join the United States military is not one of them. If you want to restrict access to the military based on sexuality you must justify this.

In your 206 post:

you stated that homosexual couples would be able to follow different rules then hetero couples. This is false, lolgaxe addressed this, as did I in the post shortly after that you've ignored.

your shower point. If you think homosexuals should have separate showers, feel free to try and get this changed, but seeing as they already shower together, repealing DADT does not change anything, and so this is not a legitimate reason.

Finally, people trying to cheat the system is not a valid reason to discriminate based on sexuality.
____________________________
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
#693Almalieque, Posted: Oct 14 2011 at 3:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I've realized the disconnect in our argument, so I'm going to try to summarize this. If there is something left out that you want me to address, then let me know.
#694 Oct 14 2011 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
That was a lot of typing just to say you're afraid to come out of the closet.

Quote:
So, what's the difference between a woman in a fire fight and a woman in a fire fight?

One's a woman and the other's a woman?
#695 Oct 14 2011 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Wrong! One's in a fire fight while the other's in a fire fight. It's obvious.
____________________________
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

#696 Oct 14 2011 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,649 posts
By fire fight we mean kitchen, right?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#697 Oct 14 2011 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Making a ham sandwich.
____________________________
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

#698 Oct 14 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
If your goal is to specifically/exclusively argue to end a specific type of discrimination, then you need to use an argument that is specifically/exclusively for that particular discrimination. Else, you are arguing inclusively for any other discrimination that fits your argument.

That's a pretty flawed bit of logic that gets your whole argument off on an incredibly weak foundation. I've already explained why before but it seems like a gulf too wide for you to cross.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#699 Oct 14 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,642 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If your goal is to specifically/exclusively argue to end a specific type of discrimination, then you need to use an argument that is specifically/exclusively for that particular discrimination. Else, you are arguing inclusively for any other discrimination that fits your argument.

That's a pretty flawed bit of logic that gets your whole argument off on an incredibly weak foundation. I've already explained why before but it seems like a gulf too wide for you to cross.



The gulf between his ears. AMIRITE???

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
#700 Oct 14 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
dp

Edited, Oct 14th 2011 11:25pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#701 Oct 14 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
I've realized the disconnect in our argument....


I don't think you have.


Quote:
so I'm going to try to summarize this.


nope guess not.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 61 All times are in CDT