Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#377 Oct 03 2011 at 6:13 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That was a lot of words to avoid just asking the question. Go go embarrassed obfuscation! Smiley: laugh


I already explained it directly in reference to DADT, let me quote it again for you. If you don't understand that and don't want a further explanation, then politely STFU
Almalieque on Page 6 wrote:
Except that isn't the counterpart. The reasons why heterosexual men dont' want to shower with homosexual men ARE THE SAME reasons why heterosexual women don't want to shower with heterosexual men.

It's the concept not the details. If you accept one argument based on feelings x,y and z, then you must also accept the other argument based on feelings x,y and z. Like I keep saying in every SSM argument, if you argue for all, then you must accept all. Else, you must make an exclusive argument


Only you have, once again, completely failed to realize that this isn't the issue at all. Homosexual men (and women) have already been showering with the straight people for quite some time so apparently nobody really minds that.

Really, the only difference is that now the homosexual people don't have to hide that fact anymore. It doesn't change anything about those people, about their colleagues and it shouldn't change the way they are thought of.

Sooo, what's the problem again?


I already answered that as well. I can find the quote to that later if I have time. I believe it was a response to RDD. The fact that homosexuals are currently serving in the military HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MY ARGUMENT. Read my post on page 6 and tell me where it says otherwise.

Jophiel wrote:
Really? THAT was your argument? The thing that was discredited back on page 6 as well?

Well, ****, had you just asked "If a child is already eating a ham sandwich and then says it'd be unfair to let him eat that if he's not also being force-fed a turkey sandwich as well because he has to be held down with every conceivable sandwich shoved down his gullet or else he can't have any food ever again, should the mother run to the store now or quietly call DCFS and save them the hassle of an investigation?" then I might have understood what you meant. Because, as I suspected, your "comparison" didn't work at all.


Responding to the post isn't the same as discrediting it. As I suspected, you completely fail because your "comparison" had nothing to do with my statement. You once again, made up some illogical crap, projected unto me as if it were my argument and then argued against it as opposed to just answering the question. You must be that scared huh?! Afraid of putting your foot in your mouth that you would rather avoid answering the question by projecting a stupid argument.

Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Well if you don't think it will adversely affect the military shut the fuck up!


What are you talking about? Your proposition was the military collapsing, which I never implied.


Well you think less people will join because of this right? Which leads to the military collapsing. If you don't think this, why are you making such a big fucking deal about it?

Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 5:49am by Nilatai

I don't think that and my reason on why it's a big deal is in my ginormous post on page 5.

TL;DR, be more succinct.


Well, then I guess you just wont know then... too sadSmiley: frown
#378 Oct 03 2011 at 6:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Or you can't actually construct a succinct answer, meaning everything you've written thus far is just babble. Much like everything else you write, really.

Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 8:17am by Nilatai
____________________________
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
#379 Oct 03 2011 at 6:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Nilatai wrote:
Or you can't actually make a succinct answer, meaning everything you've written thus far is just babble. Much like everything else you write, really.
If you read his post on page 6 (that he can't be bothered to dredge up himself) all things will be clear.
____________________________
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
#380 Oct 03 2011 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Only you have, once again, completely failed to realize that this isn't the issue at all. Homosexual men (and women) have already been showering with the straight people for quite some time so apparently nobody really minds that.

Really, the only difference is that now the homosexual people don't have to hide that fact anymore. It doesn't change anything about those people, about their colleagues and it shouldn't change the way they are thought of.

Sooo, what's the problem again?
I already answered that as well. I can find the quote to that later if I have time. I believe it was a response to RDD. The fact that homosexuals are currently serving in the military HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MY ARGUMENT. Read my post on page 6 and tell me where it says otherwise.
You have plenty of time to type in non answers so why don't you go search for that quote now?
Or you can restate it because I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks you answered that.
____________________________
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.
#381 Oct 03 2011 at 6:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
As I suspected, you completely fail because your "comparison" had nothing to do with my statement. You once again, made up some illogical crap, projected unto me as if it were my argument and then argued against it as opposed to just answering the question. You must be that scared huh?!

Nope. My comparison actually addresses your asinine belief that if you do A, you must do B, C, D, E, etc. It was much closer to your argument than yours.

But, yeah, keep saying I'm scared because that'll probably make me agree with you Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#382 Oct 03 2011 at 6:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Or you can't actually make a succinct answer, meaning everything you've written thus far is just babble. Much like everything else you write, really.
If you read his post on page 6 (that he can't be bothered to dredge up himself) all things will be clear.

*Groan*

Do I have to? Will it really be worth my time?
____________________________
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
#383 Oct 03 2011 at 6:23 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Or you can't actually make a succinct answer, meaning everything you've written thus far is just babble. Much like everything else you write, really.
If you read his post on page 6 (that he can't be bothered to dredge up himself) all things will be clear.

*Groan*

Do I have to? Will it really be worth my time?
He won't do it himself and no it definitely won't be.
____________________________
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.
#384 Oct 03 2011 at 6:24 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,380 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Or you can't actually make a succinct answer, meaning everything you've written thus far is just babble. Much like everything else you write, really.
If you read his post on page 6 (that he can't be bothered to dredge up himself) all things will be clear.

*Groan*

Do I have to? Will it really be worth my time?
He won't do it himself and no it definitely won't be.
Being worth his time or not is irrelevant. He's clearly shown his time has no value by arguing with Alma in the first place.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#385 Oct 03 2011 at 6:44 AM Rating: Excellent
ALma, on page 5 wrote:
The reason why my post did not have details the way you wanted is because it was a conceptual argument. I was asked what I thought of it and I expressed my opinion. What I realized after finishing this post was that you all expected a different type of response. I responded to the question of how I feel with the conceptual argument of allowing overall ignorance making changes does more harm than good. My post wasn't intended to point fingers at any one thing, but to go over the conceptual errors. The concept of the "big picture" is two fold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nilatai wrote:

*Groan*

Do I have to? Will it really be worth my time?


It has nothing to do with sandwiches. Apparently, he believes repealing DADT leads to more discrimination, thinks there's some scenario where discrimination due to sexual orientation is ok (but doesn't offer an example), thinks that there are laws, rules and regulations that openly and blatantly discriminate against ***, skin color, height, weight, age, nationality, national background, family background, & religious preference (but doesn't give examples), forgets yet again that GENDER is why people use the same showers, thinks it's reverse discrimination because two homosexuals can bunk together it's unfair to heterosexual couples (It isn't, because not only is GENDER why they bunk together, but two ****'s sleeping in the same barracks don't HAVE to be a couple & are still subject to the same rules regarding fraternization that straights are), believes there're logical reasons for DADT (But offers none), doesn't understand what "lastly" means (by using it midway through his post), thinks there will be more SS "sham" marriages than traditional "sham" marriages (And offers no evidence), & is still afraid the poofs are looking at his wiener.

And again, I offer this elaborate solution:

Screenshot




Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 9:35am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#386 Oct 03 2011 at 7:02 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
"Shower Shortz". For the man who has nothing to hide...


...but still wants to.
#387 Oct 03 2011 at 7:28 AM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
If that's the problem, then the military should be restricted to straight, white, male property owners.

problem solved
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#388 Oct 03 2011 at 7:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The batshit insane part of this is that people like Alma and Gbaji aren't arguing to expand or protect anyone's rights, they just want to "punish" everyone else.

No one has the "right" to look at your junk so they're not demanding co-ed facilities to expand the men's rights. They're not creating arguments for how co-ed facilities will benefit anyone. They're just engaging in some immature and petty fit of pique saying "If these guys are unhappy, YOU have to be unhappy!"

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#389 Oct 03 2011 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
I couldn't really care less if a ******* sees my snatch, anyway. I've just been catcalled (among other things) enough times by men with my clothes on that showering in front of them seems entirely unpalatable.

Dudes generally don't catcall other dudes.

Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 8:46am by Sweetums
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#390 Oct 03 2011 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
So Alma's argument against the repeal of DADT is a child eating a ham sandwich that his mother let him eat, but dinner time approaches and mom doesn't take the sandwich and starts cooking dinner, but someone looking in from the street is enraged saying how the mom doesn't want the kid to have the sandwich?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#391 Oct 03 2011 at 8:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I think it's that the child is eating a sandwich and another child sees that sandwich so, to be fair, the mother has to pull out a sausage for the children to look at.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#392 Oct 03 2011 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I think it's that the child is eating a sandwich and another child sees that sandwich so, to be fair, the mother has to pull out a sausage for the children to look at.

Smiley: laugh
#393varusword75, Posted: Oct 03 2011 at 8:11 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#394 Oct 03 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Turkey sandwiches are superior.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#395 Oct 03 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
I'm wondering what you got against ham sandwiches.

Antisemite.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#396 Oct 03 2011 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,380 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Dudes generally don't catcall other dudes.
*** guys sure as **** do.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#397varusword75, Posted: Oct 03 2011 at 8:24 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#398 Oct 03 2011 at 8:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's because they love the Jewish people. Try and keep up.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#399 Oct 03 2011 at 8:30 AM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Varus has a ***** for Leviticus so if he were interested in following Biblical law, he wouldn't eat it either.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#400 Oct 03 2011 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
The biggest flaw in religious practices is that bacon and shrimp are awesome.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#401 Oct 03 2011 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Satan made them that way!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)