Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#927 Oct 25 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Alma wrote:
So, before you go around calling people an "embarrassment", you need to look yourself in the mirror.
Ha, the wit of Peewee Herman we got here.

You do your job, huh. Seems you have plenty of time to post on Zam, sir. I can't think of a single deployment I've done that gave me even a minute to post on an internet forum playing semantic games. But you keep telling yourself you're doing a good job. You're the only one that will. Smiley: smile


I'm not going to lie, the amount of free time that I have now has increased dramatically. That is odd as my work load has more than doubled. This is actually my YM/FB/skype time, no one just so happens to be online and I'm about to go to sleep.

Nad wrote:

You're a gay man that won't come out and you live with your parents. That's pretty embarrassing.


Is that really the best you can come up with?

When I come back, I have to end up renting a freaking 4 bedroom just because everything else is taken up. I almost wouldn't mind having some company to fill up space and pay for rent.

Jophiel wrote:

Smiley: laugh I guess you felt like you had to run away from the jobs thing to some safer-ground strawman.

No, I'm just pointing out how silly your argument is. Of course it's discrimination. Just because some form of discrimination is accepted and logical doesn't make it any less of discrimination.

Jophiel wrote:
Simplistic but not especially accurate in this scenario for multiple reasons.

Which are? Please enlighten me. Seriously, maybe I'm missing something. If I'm correct, it took a Dem to add DADT and it took a DEM to remove DADT. Most Republicans voice traditional Christians morals and values which more often than not speak against homosexuality. Every time SSM is shot down, people blame Christian views. Then, some how when talking about percentages of U.S Americans favoring homosexuality in the military, Christians are all for it?!?!?!

Jophiel wrote:
Because the purpose of BFOQs is to establish what does and doesn't count as discrimination and you're still crying about the lack of black actors playing Lief Erickson and demanding that we all call it discrimination.


No, just because a form of discrimination is accepted, i.e. minority scholarships, racial quotas, etc., doesn't mean it isn't discrimination. To you it's not discrimination, but not to the person who lost a job and ultimately a paycheck. So, what happens if every director "envisions" white male characters and there aren't any roles for anyone else? Is that also covered?
#928 Oct 25 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nad wrote:

You're a gay man that won't come out and you live with your parents. That's pretty embarrassing.


Is that really the best you can come up with?

When I come back, I have to end up renting a freaking 4 bedroom just because everything else is taken up. I almost wouldn't mind having some company to fill up space and pay for rent.

Just come on out, you might have enough new "friends" to fill up that basement.
#929 Oct 25 2011 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Isn't Alma always saying that it's not the same thing to point out that discrimination against race and sexuality are essentially the same thing? I'm fairly sure it's always his argument that sexuality is special, now he's trying to say it's not.

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.


I never argued that sexuality was special. I argued that the discrimination against a physical trait is not the same thing as discrimination as a personal trait.

What I'm arguing now is that there are logical discrimination against both physical and personal traits and that sexuality isn't special.

Learn to read.

Oh, right. You're still trying to say that sexuality is a personality trait. Gotcha.
____________________________
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
#930 Oct 25 2011 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Alma wrote:
This is actually my YM/FB/skype time
Must be nice to have that kind of time. I guess I would have, too, if I only paid attention to my soldiers if they came to me and wasn't proactive at all.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#931 Oct 25 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Almalieque wrote:
No.

I'm not naive. I realize some stuff I say maybe misleading, not clear, etc.


Do you? Do you really?

Almalieque wrote:
but when I counter you with a quote, then that wasn't the case. There are many times where I say something very clear and people just ignore it.

What part of the below statements are difficult to understand?

"Just like current discrimination practices don't justify other forms of justification, neither does being affected by a form of discrimination justifies its removal. "

"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. "


Are we really doing this?

Well okay then. The grammar in the first sentence is atrocious. It's the sentence equivalent of a magic eye: I might be able to noodle out something that looks like a meaning if I stare at it long enough, but it's going to give me a headache.

That's pretty much what half of your writing is like. The ability to construct a proper sentence apparently isn't a stringent requirement for officers.

The second sentence doesn't make sense either, but that's mostly because it's culled from a larger sentence and has lost its context. But how about the phrase "You have to argue for your argument." What?

And that's just one part of why you can't properly express an idea: your writing. There's also the parts where you struggle with simple logic and reasoning, misunderstand proper methods of debate, demonstrate (and subsequently deny) deep-seeded bias, and get simple facts wrong. And that's probably only about half of the problem.
#932 Oct 25 2011 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm just pointing out how silly your argument is.

Well, you're pointing out how silly something is, anyway.

Jophiel wrote:
Which are? Please enlighten me. Seriously, maybe I'm missing something. If I'm correct, it took a Dem to add DADT and it took a DEM to remove DADT.

And this has what to do with BFOQs and Hooters lawsuits? Forget your Ritalin this morning? Explain to me exactly what the partisan effect on the Hooters lawsuits was.

Quote:
No, just because a form of discrimination is accepted, i.e. minority scholarships, racial quotas, etc., doesn't mean it isn't discrimination. To you it's not discrimination, but not to the person who lost a job and ultimately a paycheck. So, what happens if every director "envisions" white male characters and there aren't any roles for anyone else? Is that also covered?

Tyler Perry cleans up. Perhaps you kept missing where I was qualifying "discrimination" beyond "whatever we want it to mean". There was a reason for that. See if you can figure it out.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#933 Oct 25 2011 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I like how whenever alma starts feeling desperate he turns back to the old, "EVERYTHING IS DISCRIMINATION" line. As if the idea of discrimination when I pick apples instead of pears is in anyway relevant to the discussion. We've had this out before, there is a very specific definition of what discrimination is when people say they are against it.

You saying that any choice is discrimination between the options does not count as discrimination in this discussion. Using it as such obfuscates the argument.
____________________________
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
#934 Oct 25 2011 at 5:10 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,159 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Which are? Please enlighten me. Seriously, maybe I'm missing something. If I'm correct, it took a Dem to add DADT and it took a DEM to remove DADT.

And this has what to do with BFOQs and Hooters lawsuits? Forget your Ritalin this morning? Explain to me exactly what the partisan effect on the Hooters lawsuits was.

Well, someone around here is clearly off their pills if they feel the need to argue with themselves. Smiley: tongue
#935 Oct 25 2011 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
.Smiley: laugh




Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#936 Oct 25 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I don't argue with myself because it's annoying arguing with someone that's always 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.
#937 Oct 25 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Just start using words in a different way then yourself so that you obfuscate the discussion.
____________________________
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
#938 Oct 25 2011 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:

So please give me your definition of discrimination and how denying someone a job to provide money for their family based on their skin color isn't discrimination.


Because the logic behind the discrimination isn't racial so much as it's one's "ability to play the part well."

Alma wrote:

Edit: Oh, let's play your game. I don't think telling someone to conceal their sexuality is discrimination.


But firing them for their sexuality is. Get it?

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#939 Oct 25 2011 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
mmm kay, I am gay and I think this thread is out of control, just saying

I take it back, alma is still arguing

/facepalm

Edited, Oct 25th 2011 7:58pm by Olorinus
#940 Oct 25 2011 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Telling people to hide their sexuality is not discrimination. Telling only gay people to hide their sexuality is, especially when you fire them if they reveal it.

Edited, Oct 25th 2011 9:58pm 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
#941 Oct 25 2011 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Calling typecasting discrimination is like trying to argue that the perfect actor for B.A. Baracus was Micheal Cera.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#942 Oct 25 2011 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Telling people to hide their sexuality is not discrimination. Telling only gay people to hide their sexuality is, especially when you fire them if they reveal it.

Edited, Oct 25th 2011 9:58pm by Xsarus


This omg, this.

Rules that apply to everyone are fine - rules that single out an exception are not.

Fine: Everyone is allowed to practise their religion in the army
Not fine: only wiccans can practise their religion in the army
Fine: no one is allowed to practise their religion in the army

#943 Oct 25 2011 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
Alma wrote:
So please give me your definition of discrimination and how denying someone a job to provide money for their family based on their skin color isn't discrimination.
Because the logic behind the discrimination isn't racial so much as it's one's "ability to play the part well."

Discrimination would be to deny a qualified applicant based on criteria unrelated to their qualifications. Being of the appropriate physical look is a legitimate qualification in acting.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#944Almalieque, Posted: Oct 25 2011 at 11:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Do you or do you not get the point? That's what is being argued. If you get the point, then there is no reason why you should argue the opposite. All you did was say how "grammatically incorrect an online gaming forum post is". When grammar becomes important in these scenarios, then you'll have a point. If you can't understand the point of the sentence or becomes impossible to read, then you'll have a point.
#945 Oct 26 2011 at 2:04 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
And this has what to do with BFOQs and Hooters lawsuits? Forget your Ritalin this morning? Explain to me exactly what the partisan effect on the Hooters lawsuits was.


I was pointing out that just because some people think a form of discrimination is right or wrong, it doesn't mean that everyone agrees. Furthermore, the fact that there exist a population who agrees or disagrees with the public, isn't automatic justification. Those guys felt violated (or starting up trouble) and they lost.

That's how our court system work. Whether if it is "truly" right or wrong isn't always the point.

Jophiel wrote:

Tyler Perry cleans up. Perhaps you kept missing where I was qualifying "discrimination" beyond "whatever we want it to mean". There was a reason for that. See if you can figure it out.


That doesn't answer my question. If there exists a "Tyler Perry", then my scenario isn't valid. What is preventing all of the directors to want to only higher white males? Don't you believe at some point, there should be an intervention?

You're overlooking the common sense factor. The assumption is that people will not use hatred and bigotry in their auditions. There was also a case against GAP along the same issues. You're given the freedom, because most level headed people see that as justified discrimination, but it can become blurry if taken advantage of.
#946 Oct 26 2011 at 2:13 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I like how whenever alma starts feeling desperate he turns back to the old, "EVERYTHING IS DISCRIMINATION" line. As if the idea of discrimination when I pick apples instead of pears is in anyway relevant to the discussion. We've had this out before, there is a very specific definition of what discrimination is when people say they are against it.

You saying that any choice is discrimination between the options does not count as discrimination in this discussion. Using it as such obfuscates the argument.


Here's the thing. I'm not using some basic definition "I chose white Cindy over mexican Juana". I'm saying specifically saying that you are looking for a white male to play a role of a character that can be played by anyone. You are literally denying someone a paycheck because of the color of their skin and you say that isn't discrimination?

Did you not see the Leo version of Romeo & Juliet? I don't think that guy was black (Mercutio or whatever). I could be wrong though. There is no correlation between skin color and the ability to act.

Do you think racial quotas and minority scholarships are discrimination?



#947 Oct 26 2011 at 2:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
[quote=Almalieque][quote=Nilatai]Isn't Alma always saying that it's not the same thing to point out that discrimination against race and sexuality are essentially the same thing? I'm fairly sure it's always his argument that sexuality is special, now he's trying to say it's not.

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.


I never argued that sexuality was special. I argued that the discrimination against a physical trait is not the same thing as discrimination as a personal trait.


Are instincts physical traits, yes or no?
____________________________
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
#948 Oct 26 2011 at 3:38 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Vageta wrote:
Because the logic behind the discrimination isn't racial so much as it's one's "ability to play the part well."


What do you mean? It's all racial. There is no correlation between an actor's ability to act and his skin color. If you put out as your criteria "white male, 6 ft tall", then it has everything to do with skin color because you never even gave them a chance to audition.

Vageta wrote:

But firing them for their sexuality is. Get it?


If you subscribe to the belief that sexual orientation and race are equivalent in reference to discrimination, then what's the difference from denying someone a paycheck for being a certain skin color and denying someone a paycheck for having a certain sexual orientation?

How is it ok to do one and not the other? At least in the latter you are given an opportunity to earn a paycheck. You're not given that opportunity in the former.

Sir X wrote:
Telling people to hide their sexuality is not discrimination. Telling only gay people to hide their sexuality is, especially when you fire them if they reveal it.


That's not the case. There are a set of activities that one (either heterosexual or homosexual) can not do. Just because you're heterosexual, married with kids doesn't mean a heterosexual can do whatever s/he pleases. They are bound by the same exact rules as a homosexual.

Olo wrote:

This omg, this.

Rules that apply to everyone are fine - rules that single out an exception are not.

Fine: Everyone is allowed to practise their religion in the army
Not fine: only wiccans can practise their religion in the army
Fine: no one is allowed to practise their religion in the army


Read above. Everyone is bound by the same rules.

Jophiel wrote:

Discrimination would be to deny a qualified applicant based on criteria unrelated to their qualifications. Being of the appropriate physical look is a legitimate qualification in acting.


Being legitimate doesn't mean it's no longer discrimination. That's kind of the whole point of the conversation. There exist legitimate discrimination against every human trait. The simple fact you said that, hints that you agree with my notion.

So, that means you must think racial quotas and minority scholarships are racial discrimination?

So, if I own a store, like "Hot Topic" and I have an image of what I want my employees to look like, can I not hire people who aren't "goth" enough?
#949 Oct 26 2011 at 3:40 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
[quote=Almalieque][quote=Nilatai]Isn't Alma always saying that it's not the same thing to point out that discrimination against race and sexuality are essentially the same thing? I'm fairly sure it's always his argument that sexuality is special, now he's trying to say it's not.

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.


I never argued that sexuality was special. I argued that the discrimination against a physical trait is not the same thing as discrimination as a personal trait.


Are instincts physical traits, yes or no?


If we are using the same definition, I would say no they are not. Your instincts can and will change as you experience life.
#950 Oct 26 2011 at 4:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If there exists a "Tyler Perry",

Smiley: facepalm
#951 Oct 26 2011 at 4:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
What do you mean? It's all racial. There is no correlation between an actor's ability to act and his skin color. If you put out as your criteria "white male, 6 ft tall", then it has everything to do with skin color because you never even gave them a chance to audition.


Having a buddy who actually works in casting, it isn't "white's only!" it's "the ability to pass as Caucasian". Ya know, because they have to convince an audience that they're a Caucasian character. And even then, a good actor can even nab a part where they'll play against type.
It is not racism.
Alma wrote:

If you subscribe to the belief that sexual orientation and race are equivalent in reference to discrimination, then what's the difference from denying someone a paycheck for being a certain skin color and denying someone a paycheck for having a certain sexual orientation?


They're only equivalent when the logic behind the racism/homophobia are the same. If you hate darkies & homosexuals & refuse to hire any of them, you're discriminating due to race/homophobia because you're a bigot. If darkies & ****** make you uncomfortable because you're ignorant & you refuse to hire them, it's discrimination, & it's illogical. If you're casting for a "Magic Johnson vs Larry Bird" movie & you deny Charles Barkley the part of Larry Bird, it's probably not because you're a racist.

Alma wrote:

That's not the case. There are a set of activities that one (either heterosexual or homosexual) can not do. Just because you're heterosexual, married with kids doesn't mean a heterosexual can do whatever s/he pleases. They are bound by the same exact rules as a homosexual.


But a heterosexual could declare, "I'm straight!" & keep their job while a homosexual could not declare, "I'm gay!" & keep theirs. Yes, "Don't be gay" applies to both gays & straights, but it disenfranchises only one of the two.

Alma wrote:
Being legitimate doesn't mean it's no longer discrimination. That's kind of the whole point of the conversation. There exist legitimate discrimination against every human trait. The simple fact you said that, hints that you agree with my notion.


It means there's a logical reason (The ability to convince an audience you're the character you're playing) behind the "discrimination", as opposed to an illogical one (Bigotry). What's a single logical reason to discriminate due to sexual orientation?


____________________________
"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


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 218 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (218)