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

It's SOP in most of the South, too.

The Southern Friendliness is one huge lie. We're only pretending to be nice.

It's also "Fife," not "Fif," but like it's any surprise at this point.

SpoilerITT: Alma can't count to five.

1- One is ALma's definition of "discrimination" which means "choosing between two things" and the other is discrimination due to "unjust prejudice". They're different, but both "discrimination".

2- The reasoning behind discrimination matters, because without knowing the reasoning it's impossible to tell if it's "unjust prejudice" or not. We can't legally discriminate due to "unjust prejudice", but we can for other reasons.

3- ?- I don't know what you're referring too.



Nope, but intent matters when figuring out if stealing/discrimination is right or wrong, doesn't it?



I think in the case of affirmative action, the pros outweigh the cons.



Post 385

I've never argued against "comfort" as a reason for DADT. Comfort was a reason for DADT.



Why did the presence of homos do this? Because most straights were uncomfortable knowing that there were gays in the military, I guess.

I've argued that since most Americans & the military are now comfortable with homosexuals (Which you disagree with, but cannot dispute), the negatives associated with a homosexual presence in the military no longer poses a risk to morale (in most cases), good order & discipline (Gays just LOVE orders & discipline!), & unit cohesion (in most cases).

If, the desegregation of the military by gender would ALSO result in a similar situation- then by all means integrate by gender too! But, ya know, the woman would have to actually WANT to room with the guys first. Your false equivalent is invalid, again.



So...you think its logical to discriminate due to sexual orientation at your job (the military) because you'd be uncomfortable knowing there were gays at your job & who they were (if they decided to tell you) & instead think they should keep it to themselves & get kicked out if it's found out they are gay because of your comfort?

WELL WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY SO?!!!



Affirmative action is not racial discrimination, nor is casting, & there's just no good reason to discriminate against a guy who likes to suck a ****.



I'd ask you to suck my ****, but I''m not gay.

And you'd probably like it.

Edited, Nov 10th 2011 9:59am by Omegavegeta

I believe he's trying to say that if you think affirmative action is ok in one institution, then why can't the military kick out teh geyz and call it affirmative action?

It's an idiotic argument because he's an idiot.

Only half of a post.. I'll get the rest later



1. I've stated that I wasn't using that definition several times already, so if you insist to believe that's the definition that I'm using, then you're simply in denial in order to make your argument look valid.

2- The reasoning is important, that's the whole point. You're confusing the reason with the action. My point is that we accept certain types of discrimination because of the reasons. Just because the reasons are good, that doesn't change the action in itself. You want to magically make "discrimination" not discrimination because it's done in good. Just like you stealing for good is still stealing, discriminating for good is still discriminating.

3- You claimed that there were differences in hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person only because of their skin color under Affirmative action vs hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person only because of their skin color not under Affirmative action. Please provide me a scenario that can't be considered under both.

4,5,6----?



And this entire conversation has been over accepted discrimination. This is discrimination where society believes it is "ok", "right" or "good". You claimed that doesn't exist for skin color.



You say this as Affirmative Action is the only feasible solution to racial injustice. Not only is it not, it's not even a good one. Its a lazy "quick fix" that doesn't solve the problem. It's similar to school vouchers.

All you have done was accepted a solution that involves discrimination. That's fine, but don't pretend that there isn't any discrimination involved just because you like that idea.

No, it's the same situation. There aren't many people arguing against evolution, only religious groups. Same thing with the homosexuals.

I've already explained to you why there is opposition. it's due to the nature of politics. You're really fucking stupid, aren't you? In case you can't tell, that was rhetorical.

That's a safe bet.


This illustrates why you should bet on the safe horse until you learn how to read a racing form.

You're incredibly bad with sets, because it's entirely possible for both of the following to be simultaneously true.

1. Majority of religious individuals support homosexuality.
2. Majority (or even all) attacks on homosexuality come from religious individuals.

But hey, don't let blatantly false statements get in the way of making your point.

Edited, Nov 11th 2011 8:32am by Allegory

As you were.....

You have argued against "comfort" in the most basic and general interpretation as a weak argument, while supporting it in reference to separating heterosexuals.



WRONG!

You're implying that a person who supports DADT doesn't want gays in the military. Those are two completely different topics, hence another reason why those polls were biased.



That doesn't make sense. If there is a barracks room and a shower/bathroom that can support 40/100 people, why would you create an additional barracks room and shower/bathroom to support 5 of those 40?



WTFRU talking about.. Just read post 206... Thank you for proving my point on why I can never summarize anything. I gave you a snippet of an argument to counter a claim. You took that snippet and made it into a stupid argument.



You haven't explained how hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to the color of their skin IS NOT racial discrimination. How is hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to the color of their skin under Affirmative Action different than hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to the color of their skin not under affirmative action?

Read the post above..

I admit the original lack of explanation, but I clarified my point by referencing this thread.

It is mathematically impossible for the minority of a small subset group to numerically outweigh the remaining set. There would have to be multiple subsets and at that point, those multiple subsets would no longer represent the minority.

It's either one or the other.



Orrrrrr. you failed to pick up on a famous reference. Pretty sure it's the latter

Edited, Nov 11th 2011 9:52pm by Almalieque