There's a difference between "selection" & "discrimination", @#%^wit. For the last time, when I say discrimination I'm using the definition that falls under "making an an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things", not "choosing between two or more things".
You're falsely accusing me of using fictional terminology. I gave you a very simple task. You said that selecting a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to race in affirmative action is somehow different than selecting a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to race in other scenarios. I asked you to explain how they are different. If you can't, because they aren't different, then either man up and admit it or politely STFU.
Affirmative action is a response to racism & until such a time that white's are in the minority, I don't believe that affirmative action can be misconstrued as racial discrimination to white's. Feel free to disagree with me, I don't give a ****.
As I stated before (and you conveniently overlooked), everyone (including white people) benefit from affirmative action. So, if your stance on affirmative action relies on the unjust done towards ethnic minorities, then what's your stance on when it benefits white people? Do you support affirmative action then? How can you support widening the racial gap if you're fighting to close it?
Then it should be easy for you to state your point clearly & concisely. Are you unwilling or unable too?
I can't get any clearer and more concise than "Post 206". Jus' sayin'.
Breakdown: Post 206, you used "comfort" as a reason that DADT was instated & should be upheld. I countered that because the military & American public have been proven to be comfortable with homosexuals, it was no longer logical to exclude them & it's one of the reasons DADT was repealed. "Popularity" has nothing to do with human rights.
If you think for a second that post 206 was founded on "comfort", then you have just admitted to not reading and/or comprehending my post. Either that or you're just over generalizing "comfort" in attempt to weaken my argument.
Once again, "comfort" is a huge category. My argument was that the discrimination was specifically done due to sexuality, the same exact reason for the separation of men and women. So, unless you're against the segregation of women and men, then your "comfort" attack is invalid.
Dude, I don't normally attack sources, but a link to a blog that discusses a study which is then paraphrased by an organization that's sole purpose is to prevent gays in the military & limit woman's roles is pretty weak. Really, that's all you got? Fox News doesn't have anything you can use?
I didn't for a minute take my source as something that I would defend. For almost any argument, I can google a counter study. My point is to show you how polls don't override actions. No matter how many polls you pull up, actions speak louder than words. If the military really wanted to show homosexuals extra love, then the military would have done this on their own accord.
It's not a coincidence that a decision on a national level that involves the President favors homosexuals, yet the lower court systems in the states seem to not favor homosexuals.
You can pout all you want, but the problem is civilians wanting to equalize military life with civilian life. You simply don't have the same rights and there is method to the madness and that is all explained in post 206.