Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#702 Oct 14 2011 at 9:48 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Alma wrote:
I've realized the disconnect in our argument....
I don't think you have.
The right answer would have been "Self reflection is a good thing."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#703 Oct 14 2011 at 10:16 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,277 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Alma wrote:
I've realized the disconnect in our argument....
I don't think you have.
The right answer would have been "Self reflection is a good thing."


/thread
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#704 Oct 14 2011 at 11:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
The bottom line is just like with SSM, the military is very discriminative.


Yup, there just needs to be justification for it. Why was discrimination due to sexual orientation justifiable in the military, then?

Alma wrote:
If your goal is to exclusively end discrimination against homosexuals, then fine. I honestly have no problem with that if it is well thought out and addresses all of the issues in post 206. Simply ending DADT because "it's ok to discriminate against everyone for everything except for sexuality" doesn't cut it.


DADT was ended because discrimination based upon sexual orientation isn't justifiable, dipshit.

Alma wrote:
Unfortunately, in our society, logic doesn't matter if you have certain people in offices. People are set in their ways and they will support or not support something in any circumstance. In any situation, that's wrong. When people like you think the military CAN be 24/7 as opposed to being held to the same standard on and "off" duty because you're a Soldier, Marine, Airman and Seaman 24/7 and any NCO can correct anyone in the club just like they can at the office, then you obviously have no idea on how the military functions.


I understand that you can be "off duty" while in the military. I also understand that sometimes, it can be a 24/7 job.
Alma wrote:

Because of that, you can't say that you have thought it through, because you don't even understand the scenario.


I understand the scenario perfectly. DADT was repealed because discrimination due to sexual orientation wasn't justifiable. It is similar to racial discrimination due to the fact that in both scenarios, there's nothing that the discriminated minority (blacks/homosexuals) can't do that the discriminating majority (whites/heterosexuals) can.

I'm sorry it makes you uncomfortable, but that's your problem. I'm sure you've had limited exposure to homosexuals, hence your feelings of "ickyness". However, now that DADT has been repealed & gays are free to tell you they're **** without getting kicked out, you'll be exposed to some & realize how silly you are thinking about them how you do.

Or not.
____________________________
"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


#705 Oct 15 2011 at 5:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
I understand that you can be "off duty" while in the military. I also understand that sometimes, it can be a 24/7 job.
And **** men could never handle a 24/7 job. After a day or two, they would go crazy and just start sucking random **** and molesting people in the field. We all know they basically **** vampires who can't control their hunger. The closeted ones are ok for some reason, but once they come out, look out world.

____________________________
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
#706Almalieque, Posted: Oct 15 2011 at 1:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How is that flawed logic?
#707Almalieque, Posted: Oct 15 2011 at 1:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I was going to respond to each of your points, but after reading ."I understand that you can be "off duty" while in the military. I also understand that sometimes, it can be a 24/7 job.", you are so far confused, there is no point in me arguing with you. THERE IS NO "OFF DUTY". You can get in trouble for the same things in uniform at your office as you can not in uniform on vacation in a foreign country.
#708Almalieque, Posted: Oct 15 2011 at 1:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No one is cheating the system. Even if that were true, NOT A SINGLE PERSON ACCEPTED THAT WITH SSM. EVERYONE argued that a homosexual being able to marry someone that they don't love "doesn't count", that they should be able to choose who they want to marry. Now, when the shoe is on the other foot with heterosexuals, being able to choose, it's "suck it up, homosexuals are bound by the same rules". Yet, in marriage, homosexuals are also bound by the same rules.
#709 Oct 15 2011 at 2:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
How is that flawed logic?
I previously wrote:
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.
#710 Oct 15 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
How is that flawed logic?
I previously wrote:
I've already explained why before but it seems like a gulf too wide for you to cross.


You could at least give him the post number, Joph.... Geez.
#711 Oct 15 2011 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,246 posts
I hate you guys SO MUCH.
____________________________
Banh
#712 Oct 15 2011 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Alma wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

____________________________
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

#713 Oct 15 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
By the way, anyone actually take that training or is in the service atm? Would be kind of cool to hear that perspective.


I know of someone who'd be more than happy to share his perspective, but he's been absent for a bit, and I don't want to invoke him...

Edited, Sep 20th 2011 2:02pm by Eske


Eske said this on page one in the second post. I hate Eske.


Edited, Oct 15th 2011 6:15pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#714 Oct 15 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Alma wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.


*Shrug* What else is going on?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#715 Oct 15 2011 at 5:04 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
I quoted the wrong thing, it makes no sense, @#%^.


nvm it makes perfect sense. I am smoking less weed after today.

Edited, Oct 15th 2011 7:05pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#716 Oct 15 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
I quoted the wrong thing, it makes no sense, @#%^.


nvm it makes perfect sense. I am smoking less weed after today.

Well, if you wanna get rid of your stash...
____________________________
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.
#717 Oct 15 2011 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Alma wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.


*Shrug* What else is going on?

Try City of Heroes. It's free for a few more months.
____________________________
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

#718 Oct 15 2011 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
This has nothing to do with my fictional "icky feelings", but more of you denying the fact that everything you once supported in sexuality was proven wrong. You have nothing else to say but to project stupid arguments unto me. If you truly and honestly believe that sexuality is the ONLY form of discrimination in life that CAN NOT be EVER justified in ANY scenario, then you are truly and sadly mistaken. Even people who were against DADT don't necessarily support that nonsense.


Cool story. How is it that discrimination due to sexual orientation can be logically justifiable, then? You say it can be, but you haven't made a single point supporting that argument. Instead, you move your goal posts & have said how the military discriminates due to other things, some justifiable, some not.

I don't think racial discrimination can be justified, either. If you were arguing that it could be, wouldn't it be on you to provide a single logical reason why? And if you couldn't, but could prove OTHER forms of discrimination are justifiable...wouldn't that mean jack **** since your argument would be for racial discrimination?

How about instead of referring to post 206, where you provide zero examples to justify discrimination due to sexual orientation, you try & make one? Or are you too worried about coming off as more homophobic?

Coward.
____________________________
"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


#719 Oct 15 2011 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone would understand, man, if they just re-read post 206.
____________________________
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
#720 Oct 15 2011 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
This is 206, in case anyone wants to read it, since it's his golden post.
Almalieque wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Relevant to this case, when you sign up to become a service member of the U.S military, you forfeit many of your "rights". That is part of the foundation of the U.S. military which is part of the "success" of the U.S. Military. Cherry picking certain "rights" due to current popularity only breaks that foundation.

If you want to reorganize the military and it's rules, fine, but do so by looking at the whole "big" picture. Changing some rules, while not addressing other affected and/or related/similar policies breaks down the core of the military. This goes beyond "sexuality". For example, allowing people of certain religions to not shave, while forcing others to shave and not recognizing other religions that may have similar shaving rules.

For the most part, I don't support discrimination of sexuality when hiring job positions, but the military isn't a typical job. Other jobs do not force you to live, sleep and shower with someone. No matter how much people want to deny it, it's the same exact reason why men and women don't share close quarters.

People don't understand how the military operates and then make false comparisons to discrimination of skin color and sex. As discussed numerous times in the past, simply discriminating isn't the problem, it's the wrongful discrimination without justification. That's why the military STILL discriminates against women and not discriminate by regulation on skin color.

I'm personally not affected by this ruling, but it's just another negative chip at the military which will eventually be part of a bigger chip until people start focusing on the "big picture".
This is the only statement of position that I could find from you in this thread, but you're really not saying anything specific. you say it's a negative chip, but provide no specific reason as to why. You make some general statements about the military being so different, and allude to big picture rules, but don't clarify what you mean. I know you've probably stated a bunch of stuff in a bunch of other threads, but frankly if you want to say something in this thread then say it in this thread.

As a general comment, you seem to be flipping back and forth on the shower issue. In one post you state that you're forced to shower together, and in the next statement you state that it's all curtained off and so is a non issue.

I could interpret your comments but I don't really want to deal with you crying about how I've misunderstood you for three pages, so I'm not going to.

Edited, Sep 26th 2011 11:29am by Xsarus


The reason why my post did not have details the way you wanted is because it was a conceptual argument. I was asked what I thought of it and I expressed my opinion. What I realized after finishing this post was that you all expected a different type of response. I responded to the question of how I feel with the conceptual argument of allowing overall ignorance making changes does more harm than good. My post wasn't intended to point fingers at any one thing, but to go over the conceptual errors. The concept of the "big picture" is two fold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you want it changed, fine, but if your goal is to reduce discrimination, that has to be done after reevaluating everything. It doesn't necessarily have to happen all at once, but there should at least be a plan in place. Else, you're just ADDING more discrimination. If that doesn't bother you, then you can't use "discrimination" or "fairness" in your argument to repeal DADT.

____________________________
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
#721 Oct 15 2011 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
all i saw was blah blah blah im a huge poof.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#722 Oct 15 2011 at 9:31 PM Rating: Excellent
rdmcandie wrote:
all i saw was blah blah blah im a huge poof.

I didn't read it either, just re-posted it since he keeps referencing it.
____________________________
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
#723 Oct 15 2011 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Alma wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
You're implying what he does is considered debate.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#724 Oct 15 2011 at 10:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
all i saw was blah blah blah im a huge poof.

I didn't read it either, just re-posted it since he keeps referencing it.


I think, for the most part, he's saying that if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation, then you have to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone for any reason.

Which is one of the stupidest non-arguments I've ever heard, I think.
#725 Oct 15 2011 at 10:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
All this time I've been reading post 20.6. This changes everything!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#726Almalieque, Posted: Oct 15 2011 at 10:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Omega,
#727 Oct 15 2011 at 11:21 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Only because it appeared that you honestly tried.

No, that isn't accurate. To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination. That is unless you are arguing for them as well.

In layman terms, every argument is essentially "DADT was wrong because the Earth is round". How is the Earth being round an exclusive argument against DADT? Unless you want to end all of discrimination, then that is a poor argument.


So, do you have any type of defense for discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation, or are you just going to keep telling us how we must phrase our arguments? I mean, I realize it's easier for you to just keep using a lot of words that amount to "Nuh uh, you can't say that. You have to say this," but it really gets us nowhere.

Well, that's not true. Apparently it gets us 15 pages. But that's mostly because you use a lot of words instead of just saying, "Nuh uh, you can't say that."
#728 Oct 15 2011 at 11:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Almalieque wrote:
No, that isn't accurate. To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination. That is unless you are arguing for them as well.

So then, what is the unique reason that it isn't okay to discriminate based on race?
#729 Oct 15 2011 at 11:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination.


Mojivo wrote:
So then, what is the unique reason that it isn't okay to discriminate based on race?


Get it now, Alma? You can serve in the military for the same reason that gays can: because there's nothing you can't do (as a black man)that the [formerly] discriminating majority [white people] can. You're equals. There was NO justifiable reason to discriminate because of race & the ONLY reasons it was justified was because of ignorance, power, "comfort", & bigotry.
____________________________
"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


#730 Oct 16 2011 at 12:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
No, that isn't accurate. To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination.

Bzzzttt!!

Oh, I'm sorry. You lost the washer/dryer AND the trip to Cancun, but we DO have a nice copy of the home game as a parting gift...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#731 Oct 16 2011 at 4:34 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Alma wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
You're implying what he does is considered debate.
No, that's what he's implying. Talking to him, making fun of him, telling him to go fuck himself: all things he views as debating with him.
____________________________
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

#732 Oct 16 2011 at 4:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Alma wrote:
To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination.


Mojivo wrote:
So then, what is the unique reason that it isn't okay to discriminate based on race?


Get it now, Alma? You can serve in the military for the same reason that gays can: because there's nothing you can't do (as a black man)that the [formerly] discriminating majority [white people] can. You're equals. There was NO justifiable reason to discriminate because of race & the ONLY reasons it was justified was because of ignorance, power, "comfort", & bigotry.

Don't bother, I've tried to equate his intolerance and bigotry towards homosexuals, and the intolerance and bigotry of racist white men in the past. He doesn't see the two as being even remotely similar, you know, because he's a moron.
____________________________
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
#733 Oct 16 2011 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
**
501 posts
I'm just jazzed that I was here for the incubation of post 206. I feel like I was in the room at the patent office with Einstein, or sitting under that apple tree next to Newton.


I'll be selling "Post 206 - I was there" merchandise shortly. Imagine your coworkers gawking in reverential awe as they eye your "P206-IWT" coffee mug!


____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#734 Oct 16 2011 at 3:46 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Post 3 sums up my feelings about this thread rather nicely.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#735 Oct 16 2011 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
I'll give my final opinion in post 834. Stay tuned, folks!
____________________________
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
#736 Oct 16 2011 at 8:26 PM Rating: Excellent
He's tried to make this whole that argument doesn't count because it's not valid for another situation for entirely different reasons before, and it was just as stupid that time. His logic isn't so much flawed as non-existent, especially in that he doesn't apply it to his own argument at all. Besides which, the the idea that the onus is on the side fighting discrimination is ludicrous.

Edited, Oct 16th 2011 9:28pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#737 Oct 17 2011 at 3:50 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
Quote:
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain


relevant sig is relevant then?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#738 Oct 17 2011 at 6:17 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
By the way, anyone actually take that training or is in the service atm? Would be kind of cool to hear that perspective.


I know of someone who'd be more than happy to share his perspective, but he's been absent for a bit, and I don't want to invoke him...

Edited, Sep 20th 2011 2:02pm by Eske


Eske said this on page one in the second post. I hate Eske.


Edited, Oct 15th 2011 6:15pm by rdmcandie


It's mutual.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#739 Oct 17 2011 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain


relevant sig is relevant then?
Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
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
#740 Oct 17 2011 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,887 posts
#740.

I never knew or noticed that posts were numbered before.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#741 Oct 17 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
Elinda wrote:
#740.

I never knew or noticed that posts were numbered before.

Neither did I. I think Post 206 should be a new meme.
____________________________
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.
#742 Oct 17 2011 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Debalic wrote:
I think Post 206 should be a new meme.


Agreed. Lets make this a thing.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#743 Oct 17 2011 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
That should only be a thing once Alma is a thing from the past.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#744 Oct 17 2011 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
That should only be a thing once Alma is a thing from the past.


Speaking to his views on sexuality and gender, he already is a thing from the past. He's pretty much a caveman.

Edited, Oct 17th 2011 3:31pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#745 Oct 17 2011 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Eske Esquire wrote:
Speaking to his views on sexuality and gender, he already is a thing from the past. He's pretty much a caveman.
Screenshot

Smiley: nod
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#746Almalieque, Posted: Oct 18 2011 at 1:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you're comparing skin color with sexuality, a physical trait with a personality trait and claiming that they are the same thing, then you are beyond confused. This entire time, you acted like homosexuality was the only thing being discriminated against. You asked me to list these other forms of discrimination. I listed them and your only responses were attempts of justification and "they are not the same" even though my point was just to simply prove to you that the military discriminates in more ways than one.
#747 Oct 18 2011 at 1:37 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, that isn't accurate. To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination.

Bzzzttt!!

Oh, I'm sorry. You lost the washer/dryer AND the trip to Cancun, but we DO have a nice copy of the home game as a parting gift...


???

So, you're arguing that if you want to EXCLUSIVELY argue for a specific group that you can or must include other groups? Do you not know what "exclusive" mean?

Nilatai wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
Alma wrote:
To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination.


Mojivo wrote:
So then, what is the unique reason that it isn't okay to discriminate based on race?


Get it now, Alma? You can serve in the military for the same reason that gays can: because there's nothing you can't do (as a black man)that the [formerly] discriminating majority [white people] can. You're equals. There was NO justifiable reason to discriminate because of race & the ONLY reasons it was justified was because of ignorance, power, "comfort", & bigotry.

Don't bother, I've tried to equate his intolerance and bigotry towards homosexuals, and the intolerance and bigotry of racist white men in the past. He doesn't see the two as being even remotely similar, you know, because he's a moron.



Read above. You're the ignorant moron. I've not only stated that I'm normally against discriminating against sexuality when hiring for a job, but just like with SSM, the problem is the stupid, ignorant and illogical arguments followed by implementation supported by the same stupid ideology. As I said in the last post, if you're honestly comparing a physical trait with a personality trait, then you're starting off on the wrong foot.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#748 Oct 18 2011 at 1:46 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
I'm sorry, but after post #206, I just can't motivate myself to read Alma's posts anymore. So much insight can be found within it, that not only do I understand why DADT should not have been repealed, I now am no longer left wanting for the answers to life's questions.

Truly, it is a cornucopia of reason. A font of knowledge, ever-giving. A beacon of truth that never grows dim.

From this day forth, I will consult it whenever uncertainty takes me. Alma, you may trouble yourself to explain things no further....I have everything that I need.

Edited, Oct 18th 2011 4:24pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#749 Oct 18 2011 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,350 posts
ITT: **** is a personality trait.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#750 Oct 18 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,966 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
He's tried to make this whole that argument doesn't count because it's not valid for another situation for entirely different reasons before, and it was just as stupid that time. His logic isn't so much flawed as non-existent, especially in that he doesn't apply it to his own argument at all. Besides which, the the idea that the onus is on the side fighting discrimination is ludicrous.

Edited, Oct 16th 2011 9:28pm by Xsarus


Very simple concept that you all seem not to understand. I've used this argument before and I'll use it again.

If you're fighting to change the drinking law from 21 to 18, then your argument should be why the age 18 is appropriate for the new age law. Your arguments wouldn't be, "the new age should be 18 because we can drive, work and pay taxes", because those are not exclusive to 18 and include the ages of 15-17. This means even if you are arguing for the age of 18, you are also arguing for the ages of 15-17 because according to your argument, there is no differentiation between the ages.

Now, if you said the age should be 18 because we can vote, considered legal adults, buy cigarettes, pr0n, etc., then you now have a better argument.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#751 Oct 18 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,966 posts
catwho wrote:
ITT: **** is a personality trait.


Let's not get caught up in the wrong words. What would you call it? It's not a physical trait like sexuality or skin color.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 41 All times are in CDT
ElneClare, IDrownFish, Jophiel, RavennofTitan, Samira, Anonymous Guests (36)