Wow.. your analysis is really, really off, but I sympathize with you. People routinely don't understand how someone can possibly have an objectively opposing view. You think that there must be something inherently wrong with that individual to avoid questioning your own beliefs and create fallacious scenarios to support yourself. When you realize this, then maybe, you can understand how seeing someone relatively the same isn't a contradiction to DADT.
The Arguement goes like so:
Q. Alma, why do you oppose *** rights?
A. Post 206.
Then you tell him what you got out of post 206. I did it & others have done it before you. In every single instance, he's insisted that what WE got out of 206 isn't what he meant. Since we don't understand what he meant by what he wrote, he can't be wrong. Ask for clarification, & he refers to #206.
And so on.
I will attempt it, one last time. Alma, answer any one of the following 3 questions & please use complete sentences.
Alma, why do you have an "opposing view" of *** rights in general?
Post DADT repeal, how has the repeal effected you?
Why would you support DADT re-in statement?
Failure to answer these questions can only result in you remaining a cowardly, homophobic, ******. 2K + posts AFTER 206, what's there to lose? Edited, Jan 29th 2012 8:54am by Omegavegeta