Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#1102Almalieque, Posted: Nov 09 2011 at 12:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you consider ignorance a "win for progress", then I'm afraid of what the world will look like in the future. The world doesn't revolve around what the U.S thinks is right. Just because people in the U.S. thinks that they have a natural born right to do whatever, say whatever, etc. doesn't mean that the rest of the world should be ran the same way.
#1103 Nov 09 2011 at 12:17 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Forum burp.

Edited, Nov 9th 2011 1:18pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#1104 Nov 09 2011 at 12:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
People aren't agreeing with him, they're just trying to end the conversation so they can get away.
It's standard military operating procedure when dealing with officers.


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

The Southern Friendliness is one huge lie. We're only pretending to be nice.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#1105 Nov 09 2011 at 12:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I noticed he's ignoring those of us that are on to him.
#1106 Nov 09 2011 at 1:27 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,896 posts
It's also "Fife," not "Fif," but like it's any surprise at this point.

ITT: Alma can't count to five.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1107 Nov 09 2011 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,364 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It's also "Fife," not "Fif," but like it's any surprise at this point.

ITT: Alma can't count to five.


I think Alma meant "yif".
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#1108 Nov 10 2011 at 8:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Omega wrote:
The former is affirmative action, which is a response to racism, while the latter is racism. Both are discrimination, but only one is due to "unjust prejudice". They are different & I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not.
ALma wrote:


First, I'm glad that you finally agree that they are both discrimination.

Second, the actions for both are the same. The reasoning behind the two are completely irrelevant in a discussion of discrimination.

Third, you're making an insignificant differentiation as you have yet given an example of a "other situation" that can't be viewed as "affirmative action".


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.

Alma wrote:
it can easily be viewed as "unjust prejudice" by racially discriminating against a person simply due to the color of their skin, regardless on your intent. That's like Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. A better example, stealing from the crooked and giving to the poor. Your intent doesn't change your action of stealing.


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

Alma wrote:
So you support affirmative action that widens the racial gap in order to reduce the racial gap?


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

Alma wrote:
Then you didn't read the post. Simple as that.

As I said, if you support the segregation between men and women based on "comfort", then you can't argue against "comfort" as a reason for DADT because they are based on the same exact concepts.


Post 385

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

DADT wrote:
(the presence of homosexuals)would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability


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.

Alma wrote:
As I stated in the quote within post 206, I'm generally against discrimination of sexual orientation for jobs, but I'm realist and believe just like every other human trait, there exist times of discrimination.


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 *** because of your comfort?

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


Quote:
In this very post, you finally admitted that there is racial discrimination that is supported by society. So, that only leaves you with the sexuality as the ONLY thing that can't be logically discriminated against.


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 ****.

Alma wrote:
You have your right to believe that, but I would ask you to re-look at your views.


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

And you'd probably like it.

Edited, Nov 10th 2011 9:59am 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


#1109 Nov 10 2011 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
People aren't agreeing with him, they're just trying to end the conversation so they can get away.
It's standard military operating procedure when dealing with officers.

Edited, Nov 9th 2011 9:06am by lolgaxe


One of my bosses is like this. He makes up many of the words he says, mumbles, and is generally incoherent. Despite this, he has a huge contact network, and somehow gets lots of things done in his role as a communication facilitator. I also like him because he seem unclear on the concept of recieving a personal bonus and dishes the majority out to me and a couple other, and uses the remainder as a general slush fund for 'relationship building'.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1110 Nov 10 2011 at 12:59 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
3- ?- I don't know what you're referring too.


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.
#1111 Nov 10 2011 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Hey vegeta, could you be so kind to stop arguing with that moron? You won't talk any sense in to him anyway and there's easier and better ways to +1.
____________________________
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.
#1112Almalieque, Posted: Nov 11 2011 at 4:06 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not going to pretend that I understand what you're talking about, but I am willing to say that isn't whats going on in this thread. People continuously argue that it's religion that attacks homosexuality when something isn't supported. Then these same people turn around and claim that majority of the religious people support it?!?! Nope, pick one. Both can't occur.
#1113 Nov 11 2011 at 4:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You can't have it both ways.. Just a few pages ago, people were posting polls that most of Christians and Republicans support "homosexual rights". Yet, every time these "rights" aren't supported, Christians and Republicans are the ones to blame.

Well, you can if you understand politics. "Republicans" as a general class may have plurality/majority support for SSM or whatever. This doesn't mean that GOP politicians do. So how are they elected? Because people who oppose these things typically do so more strongly than people whose opinion is "Sure, whatever" and the "family values" style primary voter comes out in greater numbers than the largely ambivalent voter. Why do you think GOP politicians put so much effort into appealing to Evangelicals?


I'm not going to pretend that I understand what you're talking about, but I am willing to say that isn't whats going on in this thread. People continuously argue that it's religion that attacks homosexuality when something isn't supported. Then these same people turn around and claim that majority of the religious people support it?!?! Nope, pick one. Both can't occur.

Yes they can. The majority of religious people accept evolution. That doesn't stop the majority of attacks on evolution coming from religion/the religious.
____________________________
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
#1114 Nov 11 2011 at 4:31 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Only half of a post.. I'll get the rest later

Vageta wrote:
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.


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----?

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


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.

Vageta wrote:
think in the case of affirmative action, the pros outweigh the cons.


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.



#1115Almalieque, Posted: Nov 11 2011 at 4:34 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes, but that scenario would only be valid if there aren't many people arguing against evolution. On this thread, statistics were shown to persuade that MOST of the US supports x,y and z. If that is the case, then there would be little to no opposition regardless of who is opposing it. Since there are only a hand full of states that support SSM, that isn't the case. There is obviously enough opposition to prevent SSM being in all 50 states. Therefore, you can not pretend that MOST of the US is in favor.
#1116 Nov 11 2011 at 4:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
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.
____________________________
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
#1117 Nov 11 2011 at 7:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
I think the US military field manuals should insist that the Earth is flat, and that the Sun revolves around it.
____________________________
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
#1118 Nov 11 2011 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not going to pretend that I understand what you're talking about...

That's a safe bet.

Quote:
...but I am willing to say that isn't whats going on in this thread.

This illustrates why you should bet on the safe horse until you learn how to read a racing form.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1119 Nov 11 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
This illustrates why you should bet on the safe horse until you learn how to read a racing form.


Let's see if he can handle See Spot Run before he graduates to those complicated forms, with all their numbers and charts.
#1120 Nov 11 2011 at 8:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,917 posts
Almalieque wrote:
People continuously argue that it's religion that attacks homosexuality when something isn't supported. Then these same people turn around and claim that majority of the religious people support it?!?! Nope, pick one. Both can't occur.

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
#1121 Nov 11 2011 at 8:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
But hey, don't let blatantly false statements get in the way of making your point.
Why stop now?
____________________________
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
#1122 Nov 11 2011 at 1:10 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It's also "Fife," not "Fif," but like it's any surprise at this point.

ITT: Alma can't count to five.




As you were.....
#1123 Nov 11 2011 at 1:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Alma was trying to be funny and failed.
#1124 Nov 11 2011 at 1:34 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Vageta wrote:
I've never argued against "comfort" as a reason for DADT. Comfort was a reason for DADT.


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

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


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.

Vageta wrote:
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.


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?

Vageta wrote:
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 *** because of your comfort?

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



WTFRU talking about..Smiley: dubious 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.

Vageta wrote:
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 ****.


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?


#1125 Nov 11 2011 at 1:45 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nilatai wrote:
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 was an error on my part, I meant

"Yes, but that scenario would only be valid if there WERE many people arguing against evolution. On this thread, statistics were shown to persuade that MOST of the US supports x,y and z. If that is the case, then there would be little to no opposition regardless of who is opposing it. Since there are only a hand full of states that support SSM, that isn't the case. There is obviously enough opposition to prevent SSM being in all 50 states. Therefore, you can not pretend that MOST of the US is in favor."

The point is that there aren't that many people arguing against evolution to make a difference on which population supports what. If MOST people supported homosexuality, then it wouldn't be enough people to oppose SSM. Given that there is enough opposition to fight it, then majority of the groups who typically oppose it (Religious people) can't support SSM.

The only other mathematical way that would be possible is if there were multiple small groups that, when added together, gave enough people to oppose SSM. Even then, that wouldn't represent "majority of the nation", which contradicts the argument of "removing DADT because most of the US supports homosexuality"
#1126 Nov 11 2011 at 1:51 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
People continuously argue that it's religion that attacks homosexuality when something isn't supported. Then these same people turn around and claim that majority of the religious people support it?!?! Nope, pick one. Both can't occur.

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


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.

Nadenu wrote:
Alma was trying to be funny and failed.


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

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

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 73 All times are in CST
Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (72)