Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#1202 Nov 18 2011 at 1:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
Your problem is that you're basing "logic" from popularity. It doesn't matter what the majority or minority believes. It's either logical or it's not. Just because the rest of society believes the world is flat, that doesn't make it logical.


I'm basing my logic on the justification behind the policy. If you need to be this tall to ride the roller coaster, the logic behind the policy isn't "***** short people" (Despite whether or not short folks feel discriminated against because of the policy) it's safety. That policy isn't going to change unless it's found out that the safety of the short folks isn't compromised.

Comfort can & was used as a justification for DADT, restrictions on woman in combat, & racial segregation in the military. It is/was thought that if a straight/white/male isn't comfortable with a homosexual/ethnic minority/woman to do the same job he can do it'll hurt combat effectiveness, morale, & ability. I can understand the justification when the majority of soldiers feel that way, even if I disagree with why these people are "uncomfortable" with woman, gays, & minorities (Sexism, bigotry & ignorance), but it STOPS being justified when the majority is comfortable with the minority in those roles.

A consensus has been reached & that is that allowing homosexuals to come out isn't going to hurt the abilities of the armed forces in most situations. Without that reasoning to justify DADT, you've either got to find other reasoning to justify DADT or repeal it. It was repealed. If you want to re-instate it, then you Alma, need to provide some sort of logic to justify it.

Alma wrote:

I can't stress the fact that actions are louder than words. You're wanting to believe something that simply isn't reality. Why do you think the majority of open homosexuals in the military are women?

Just yesterday my Commander was referencing an article of how society is growing further and further away from the military where you have civilians in charge of things that they don't understand. He followed with the change of DADT alone was evident of that and said "well, at least the Chaplain can hate it" and everyone laughed.


If you want to dispute the evidence, provide some yourself. The less partisan the source, the more weight & merit said evidence will carry.

Alma wrote:
We're talking about reasoning and logic for the discrimination, not for the change of anything.


If DADT actually prevented homosexuals from sharing living facilities with heterosexuals, you might have actually been able to use it as reasoning & logic for DADT.

Alma wrote:

Explain their relationship.


prejudging, present participle of pre·judge

Verb:
Form a judgment on (an issue or person) prematurely and without adequate information.


preconceived/ˌprēkənˈsēvd/

Adjective:
(of an idea or opinion) Formed before having the evidence for its truth or usefulness.


I believe their relationship to be consensual.

Alma wrote:
RAWR! Casting is discrimination!!!


Race may be a part of the casting process, but it isn't the only reason someone is cast for a part. I also understand that you don't want "prejudice" to be a part of the definition of discrimination, but the fact is except for when you use "discrimination" as a synonym for "to choose or distinguish" discrimination is, literally, the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category.

Casting CAN be discriminatory, but only if prejudice is involved instead of "type" & acting ability.

Alma wrote:
YOU WERE THE ONE WHO MENTIONED REPARATIONS.


Which is an example of how my views on race tend to be even more progressive than most. If you'd like to continue that discussion, you can start a thread on it.

Alma wrote:

Logic has nothing to do in whether if it's discrimination or not. Logic has everything to do with whether we should accept the discrimination or not.


Why should we accept discrimination due to one's sexual orientation then?

Alma wrote:
Well tell me first that you have no idea what possible discrimination against homosexuals that I might support in a DADT thread debating DADT.


You would support homosexual segregation because *** guys might look at your junk & that would make you feel hypothetically uncomfortable. Other than that, fuck if I know.

Alma wrote:
Like I said.. How do you know me from Tom or Harry? You admitted that it wasn't about being "icky" and all you have said was "not in your case". Give me a reason that you would accept as not "icky" or "homophobia" supporting DADT that has nothing to do with the popularity of the nation.


I believe you're uncomfortable with even the thought of having to be around homosexuals & you've done nothing to dispel that. I'll accept a logical argument for the disenfranchisement of homosexuals in the military if you can provide one.

Example: It is logical to disenfranchise woman by not allowing them to serve in certain combat roles as, traditionally, women tend not to be as strong as their male counterparts & having them in those roles would diminish the military's combat effectiveness.
____________________________
"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


#1203 Nov 18 2011 at 2:20 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Vageta wrote:
I'm basing my logic on the justification behind the policy. If you need to be this tall to ride the roller coaster, the logic behind the policy isn't "***** short people" (Despite whether or not short folks feel discriminated against because of the policy) it's safety. That policy isn't going to change unless it's found out that the safety of the short folks isn't compromised.


Your reason doesn't disqualify it from being discrimination. Your reason is why it should be supported or not. Stealing from the crooked to give to the poor is still stealing no matter how good the intentions are.

Vageta wrote:
Comfort can & was used as a justification for DADT, restrictions on woman in combat, & racial segregation in the military. It is/was thought that if a straight/white/male isn't comfortable with a homosexual/ethnic minority/woman to do the same job he can do it'll hurt combat effectiveness, morale, & ability. I can understand the justification when the majority of soldiers feel that way, even if I disagree with why these people are "uncomfortable" with woman, gays, & minorities (Sexism, bigotry & ignorance), but it STOPS being justified when the majority is comfortable with the minority in those roles.


1. You say "A JUSTIFICATION", but pretend that it is the SOLE JUSTIFICATION.

2. Your definition of "comfort" is only accurate in the most basic definition, else those things had nothing to do with comfort. I can use "comfort" as a reason to do or not to do anything. "I shouldn't have to wear a seat belt because it doesn't feel comfortable".

3. Even if it were the most basic definition, it doesn't matter if 100% of the people were not comfortable with homosexuality, women, ethnic minorities, etc., the logic behind supporting the discrimination has nothing to do with the popularity of it. Being comfortable serving with homosexuals has nothing to do with sexual modesty. So unless you believe that sexual modesty no longer exist, then you have no argument.

Vageta wrote:
A consensus has been reached & that is that allowing homosexuals to come out isn't going to hurt the abilities of the armed forces in most situations. Without that reasoning to justify DADT, you've either got to find other reasoning to justify DADT or repeal it. It was repealed. If you want to re-instate it, then you Alma, need to provide some sort of logic to justify it.


There was no consensus. This was President Obama holding onto his political promises for political reasons. The military in general, overall do not support the repeal and never had. That very own poll admitted to not fairly representing the Combat Arms who mostly support DADT. I took the poll, just as the link that I provided stated, it was completely biased as it never differentiated between homosexuality, DADT, supporting either or being undecided.

Vageta wrote:
If you want to dispute the evidence, provide some yourself. The less partisan the source, the more weight & merit said evidence will carry.


The actual survey in question is all the evidence that I need. Look at it and it's results.

Vageta wrote:

If DADT actually prevented homosexuals from sharing living facilities with heterosexuals, you might have actually been able to use it as reasoning & logic for DADT.


That was the whole point of DADT, it was a compromise. You don't even understand the topic. The logic behind DADT is the same logic for the separation of women and men. I'm not referring to any application or change, just the concept of the logic. I'm asking you to explain the difference as you accept one and not the other.

Vageta wrote:
prejudging, present participle of pre·judge

Verb:
Form a judgment on (an issue or person) prematurely and without adequate information.

preconceived/ˌprēkənˈsēvd/

Adjective:
(of an idea or opinion) Formed before having the evidence for its truth or usefulness.

I believe their relationship to be consensual.


Then you're simply in denial. You can't prejudge someone without having preconceived thoughts about that person.

Vageta wrote:
Race may be a part of the casting process, but it isn't the only reason someone is cast for a part. I also understand that you don't want "prejudice" to be a part of the definition of discrimination, but the fact is except for when you use "discrimination" as a synonym for "to choose or distinguish" discrimination is, literally, the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category.

Casting CAN be discriminatory, but only if prejudice is involved instead of "type" & acting ability.


Provide to me reasons why a side character in an all one race movie couldn't be another race?

I can discriminate against you without having prejudged thoughts about you.

Vageta wrote:

Which is an example of how my views on race tend to be even more progressive than most. If you'd like to continue that discussion, you can start a thread on it.


BS, you said that in support of AA.

Vageta wrote:

Why should we accept discrimination due to one's sexual orientation then?


Post 206

Vageta wrote:
I believe you're uncomfortable with even the thought of having to be around homosexuals & you've done nothing to dispel that. I'll accept a logical argument for the disenfranchisement of homosexuals in the military if you can provide one.


I said it isn't true. There isn't anything else I can say. I live by myself. I shower by myself. I have no "fear" of homosexuals. You're only saying that because you want steer the conversation to a stupid argument so you can be right.

Vageta wrote:
Example: It is logical to disenfranchise woman by not allowing them to serve in certain combat roles as, traditionally, women tend not to be as strong as their male counterparts & having them in those roles would diminish the military's combat effectiveness.


Really? So, even if a woman is fully capable of doing it, you wont let her do it because she has a ******?

Give me one example of how more strength is required to be a tanker than a MP. Go.

You still haven't told me how we're able to have all boys schools but not all white schools.

You still haven't differentiated not hiring someone under AA from not hiring someone under racial discrimination.
#1204 Nov 18 2011 at 2:56 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
#1205 Nov 18 2011 at 2:59 AM Rating: Excellent

Alma wrote:
1. You say "A JUSTIFICATION", but pretend that it is the SOLE JUSTIFICATION.


Give me another reason then.

The rest of your post has been covered, ad naseum.
____________________________
"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


#1206 Nov 18 2011 at 6:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm laughing that for "less partisan" sources, we get the Family Research Council, an opinion column and the Military Culture Coalition Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1207 Nov 18 2011 at 6:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
I'm laughing that for "less partisan" sources, we get the Family Research Council, an opinion column and the Military Culture Coalition Smiley: laugh
That's 'less partisan' than who? The National Socialist party?


Edited, Nov 18th 2011 7:38am by Lubriderm
____________________________
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
#1208 Nov 18 2011 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Fuck you Elinda. He's where he belongs, not fucking up other threads with his stupid.

RAWRR...You Soulless Tiger.

It will only be to your benefit to have Alma bringing down the curve in other threads.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#1209 Nov 18 2011 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts


Smiley: lolBachmann: I ‘Probably Would’ Reinstate DADT Because It ‘Has Worked Very Well’

Worked well how you might ask?

Quote:
Exactly how Bachmann defines “worked” remains unclear. Since its establishment in 1993, the DADT policy has resulted in the direct ouster of nearly 14,000 military service members. According to a 2007 study by the Williams Institute, the military’s retainment rates have also been harmed by the policy, with approximately 4,000 ***, ******* and bisexual personnel leaving the military per year, who “would have been retained if they could have been more open about their sexual orientation.” Finally, at least 58 Arabic linguists have been expunged from the military due to DADT policy — a serious loss in an era in which Middle Eastern terrorism is a significant international threat.
I'm sure the military is a leaner meaner organization thanks to DADT. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#1210 Nov 18 2011 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Elinda wrote:
I'm sure the military is a leaner meaner organization thanks to DADT.


Under DADT, it certainly had more instances of Alma being hypothetically comfortable living with homosexuals since he didn't have to know if they were *** if they felt like telling him.

I bet he still wore shorts though, just in case.

____________________________
"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


#1211 Nov 18 2011 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,660 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Under DADT, it certainly had more instances of Alma being hypothetically comfortable living with homosexuals since he didn't have to know if they were *** if they felt like telling him.
That would make him a bad leader. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1212 Nov 18 2011 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
Elinda wrote:
It will only be to your benefit to have Alma bringing down the curve in other threads.
There is no benefit that outweighs the cost.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1213 Nov 18 2011 at 9:42 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:

Alma wrote:
1. You say "A JUSTIFICATION", but pretend that it is the SOLE JUSTIFICATION.


Give me another reason then.

Post 206



Vageta wrote:
The rest of your post has been covered, ad naseum.

Really? So, even if a woman is fully capable of doing it, you wont let her do it because she has a ******?

Give me one example of how more strength is required to be a tanker than a MP. Go.

You still haven't told me how we're able to have all boys schools but not all white schools.

You still haven't differentiated not hiring someone under AA from not hiring someone under racial discrimination.

What about my links?

I will make the other thread of AA, so think of your counters to education, self respect, motivation and a goal.

Jophiel wrote:
I'm laughing that for "less partisan" sources, we get the Family Research Council, an opinion column and the Military Culture Coalition Smiley: laugh


You're just proving my point. These polls are dumb and biased by nature. For every poll that you find arguing for x, I can probably find a poll arguing against x.

Vageta wrote:
Under DADT, it certainly had more instances of Alma being hypothetically comfortable living with homosexuals since he didn't have to know if they were *** if they felt like telling him.

I bet he still wore shorts though, just in case.


I'm pretty sure there were no homosexuals living in my apartment.

Elinda wrote:
I'm sure the military is a leaner meaner organization thanks to DADT.


She probably knows just as much about the military as the average politician. My point wasn't her belief, but the point that she would support reinstating it. That supports my argument that this only happened because there was a Dem in office. If McCain would have won, it would still be active. So this nonsense of "it's what the military want" is garbage.
#1214 Nov 18 2011 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:

Alma wrote:
1. You say "A JUSTIFICATION", but pretend that it is the SOLE JUSTIFICATION.


Give me another reason then.

Post 206



Vageta wrote:
The rest of your post has been covered, ad naseum.

Really? So, even if a woman is fully capable of doing it, you wont let her do it because she has a ******?

Give me one example of how more strength is required to be a tanker than a MP. Go.

You still haven't told me how we're able to have all boys schools but not all white schools.

You still haven't differentiated not hiring someone under AA from not hiring someone under racial discrimination.

What about my links?

I will make the other thread of AA, so think of your counters to education, self respect, motivation and a goal.

Jophiel wrote:
I'm laughing that for "less partisan" sources, we get the Family Research Council, an opinion column and the Military Culture Coalition Smiley: laugh


You're just proving my point. These polls are dumb and biased by nature. For every poll that you find arguing for x, I can probably find a poll arguing against x.

Vageta wrote:
Under DADT, it certainly had more instances of Alma being hypothetically comfortable living with homosexuals since he didn't have to know if they were *** if they felt like telling him.

I bet he still wore shorts though, just in case.


I'm pretty sure there were no homosexuals living in my apartment.

Elinda wrote:
I'm sure the military is a leaner meaner organization thanks to DADT.


She probably knows just as much about the military as the average politician. My point wasn't her belief, but the point that she would support reinstating it. That supports my argument that this only happened because there was a Dem in office. If McCain would have won, it would still be active. So this nonsense of "it's what the military want" is garbage.
You really want Bachmann's opinion to be representative of the average republican?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#1215 Nov 18 2011 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,660 posts
Alma wrote:
Give me one example of how more strength is required to be a tanker than a MP. Go.
I don't know of much ammo an MP would use that weighs 40 lbs per.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1216 Nov 18 2011 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Alma wrote:
Give me one example of how more strength is required to be a tanker than a MP. Go.
I don't know of much ammo an MP would use that weighs 40 lbs per.
I have a friend who was an MP and they were specially trained on how to locate and attack pressure points that leave people pretty much incapacitated. The idea being, you're going to come up against some beefed up, highly trained people as an MP and strength isn't going to cut it in stopping them. I'm not sure strength is really a requirement in any way at all as an MP. At least not in the Canadian Forces.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1217 Nov 18 2011 at 10:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm laughing that for "less partisan" sources, we get the Family Research Council, an opinion column and the Military Culture Coalition Smiley: laugh
You're just proving my point. These polls are dumb and biased by nature. For every poll that you find arguing for x, I can probably find a poll arguing against x.

lolwut?

You know what? Never mind. You've proven time and again that you know nothing about statistics, polling or anything related. Laughing at you is good enough.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1218 Nov 18 2011 at 10:31 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:
You really want Bachmann's opinion to be representative of the average republican?


I haven't been able to watch much of the debates now, but in the previous debates, DEMS traditionally support the repeal and Republicans didn't. DEMs tend to favor SSM, REPs dont'. It's kind of the whole reason why most homosexuals tend to vote DEM.

lolgaxe wrote:
Alma wrote:
Give me one example of how more strength is required to be a tanker than a MP. Go.
I don't know of much ammo an MP would use that weighs 40 lbs per.


Well, I can't speak from the Enlisted side. This is my first time working with tankers and I assure you that they are not lifting 40 lb ammo. They might have as a PL, but now you're looking at one or two positions out of a 20 year career.

I was talking with a 2LT tanker today and he looks like a high school/middle school kid.

This is all about gender roles. That's why women are not mandated to sign up for selective service.

Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm laughing that for "less partisan" sources, we get the Family Research Council, an opinion column and the Military Culture Coalition Smiley: laugh
You're just proving my point. These polls are dumb and biased by nature. For every poll that you find arguing for x, I can probably find a poll arguing against x.

lolwut?

You know what? Never mind. You've proven time and again that you know nothing about statistics, polling or anything related. Laughing at you is good enough.


I'm sorry if you believe that a poll of less than 1/2 of 1 percent of a population is always accurate on a highly divided issue.

Do you even watch the news? Fox News (who claims to be "fair and balance") is obviously more conservative than liberal. CNN is more liberal than conservative. Their polls often do not match. Approval ratings for DEM presidents tend to be higher on CNN than FOX and vice versa with REP presidents.

Unless you're denying that, then you're wrong.
#1219 Nov 18 2011 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're not helping your case Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1220 Nov 18 2011 at 10:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
When has he ever?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1221 Nov 18 2011 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts


Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm laughing that for "less partisan" sources, we get the Family Research Council, an opinion column and the Military Culture Coalition Smiley: laugh


You're just proving my point. These polls are dumb and biased by nature. For every poll that you find arguing for x, I can probably find a poll arguing against x.


Wow. I mean, seriously. Wow, Alma. Smiley: oyvey
#1222 Nov 18 2011 at 11:22 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Quote:
You're not helping your case Smiley: smile


You are though Smiley: schooled

Eske wrote:

Wow. I mean, seriously. Wow, Alma. Smiley: oyvey


What don't you grasp?

Actions speak louder than words. It doesn't matter what poll you may provide, the actions of the people are more accurate to what the people believe in than any poll (for or against) any subject.

I'm not going to devalue your random poll and then pretend that some other random poll has more merit. That would be fatuous. The bottom line is that survey that was conducted was considered biased by both sides of the argument. Given that, how can you conclude to anything?

#1223 Nov 18 2011 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You are though Smiley: schooled

I'm helping my case?

Well... yeah. Duh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1224 Nov 18 2011 at 12:05 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You are though Smiley: schooled

I'm helping my case?

Well... yeah. Duh.


Sure you are......Smiley: lol
#1225 Nov 18 2011 at 12:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That whole "sure you are" thing is more effective when it's not said by the one guy everyone else is laughing at for being an ignorant putz.

Just, you know, tips for the future. Ace try though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1226Almalieque, Posted: Nov 18 2011 at 12:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Thanks for the protip. Now, if only you had the same level of interest in actually making a point relevant to the topic as opposed to inaccurate insults, we could actually get some where!!!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (70)