Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#177 Sep 26 2011 at 7:27 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
I can't imagine an officer in the US Army getting much done by being enigmatic.
I can't imagine an officer in the US Army getting anything done.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#178 Sep 26 2011 at 8:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Since you obviously don't know, the U.S Army fights and wins battles with company size elements.

Blackwater's a company. Are they the element winning your battles for you?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#179Almalieque, Posted: Sep 26 2011 at 8:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ahhhh.. you can't read English? Now, I understand the problem.. Just tell me which words you don't understand and we can do this together.
#180 Sep 26 2011 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Here's the thing. You all continuously make these comments, but when asked to dissect my argument (which is just one page ago) to specifically point out your claims, you choose not to. You're talking without walking. So, I apologize if you somehow believe that I should accept your criticism when you fail to substantiate your own claims.


How can I dissect that which does not exist?

I've read your posts. You didn't make your argument clear. Common conversational etiquette would suggest that you should try to restate it in simpler, more direct terms. Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain that to you.


Now, from previous threads about this, I've got a rough idea of your stance, and I know well enough than to bother trying to argue with you about it. But if anyone else really wanted to, you're going to have to do a better job of stating your case to them.

Edited, Sep 26th 2011 10:51am by Eske
#181 Sep 26 2011 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
Internet Footsie Lawyer
*****
12,846 posts
Almalieque wrote:


Just in case you have forgotten, I'm a Captain of the United States Army. I live in my own apartment/house with my own bathroom. Even now, I'm in Iraq and I have my own room.

Captain Numbnuts!
____________________________
>.> heheheheh I am DF's sockpuppet.
rachelravage.us (somewhat NWS website)
http://www.guytalon.com/linger15.html My freeze Fetish DVD, on sale now! (WORK SAFE!)
http://venasevildolls.blogspot.com/ NWS
Niobia will establish a charity for orphaned mooses. (meese?) - Kao
ElneClare wrote:
So grow up folks and don't post anything you don't want your child to read. Doesn't matter if they are in diapers or adults, if it can upset them or you then it shouldn't be posted.
#182 Sep 26 2011 at 8:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Internet Footsie Lawyer
*****
12,846 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Since you obviously don't know, the U.S Army fights and wins battles with company size elements.

Blackwater's a company. Are they the element winning your battles for you?


Yes but in Iraq the contracts with Triple Canopy. Most of the other countries are, and you are correct, Blackwaters just under various different names. According to my hubs, the military just shows up to leech food and internet.
#183 Sep 26 2011 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I know well enough than to bother trying to argue with you
what you don't seem to know well enough though, is to not fucking talk to him, because so long as what you say doesn't 100% agree with him, then you're arguing with him, and you **** well fucking do know that.

TL;DR, Shut the fuck up. You know better.
____________________________
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

#184 Sep 26 2011 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Here's the thing. You all continuously make these comments, but when asked to dissect my argument (which is just one page ago) to specifically point out your claims, you choose not to. You're talking without walking. So, I apologize if you somehow believe that I should accept your criticism when you fail to substantiate your own claims.


Alma, one page before, quoted from someone else wrote:
If you want to reorganize the military and it's rules, fine, but do so by looking at the whole "big" picture. Changing some rules, while not addressing other affected and/or related/similar policies breaks down the core of the military. This goes beyond "sexuality". For example, allowing people of certain religions to not shave, while forcing others to shave and not recognizing other religions that may have similar shaving rules.

This being your argument, doesn't exactly explain a whole lot. You haven't said what the "big picture" is, what the other "affected and or related/similar policies" are, or what needs to be changed and why. All you say is "this will ruin the military". Now, I guess your grunts are supposed to follow orders unquestioningly without any explanation or justification, but we're gonna need more than that.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#185 Sep 26 2011 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I provided the justification.


Almalieque The Most Awesome wrote:
Other jobs do not force you to live, sleep and shower with someone. No matter how much people want to deny it, it's the same exact reason why men and women don't share close quarters.
I don't really like playing these word games, but this is the only thing I could see that is any way justifying discrimination against gays.

But, allowing gays in the military doesn't anyway impact the enlisted from living, showering and shaving together.

Tell me specifically what actions do *** people exclusively perform, or are unable to perform, while serving their country that weakens the military?


Almalieque previously wrote:
If you want to reorganize the military and it's rules, fine, but do so by looking at the whole "big" picture. Changing some rules, while not addressing other affected and/or related/similar policies breaks down the core of the military. This goes beyond "sexuality". For example, allowing people of certain religions to not shave, while forcing others to shave and not recognizing other religions that may have similar shaving rules.



I'm sorry I wasn't even able to figure out what your stance on the issue is.

I've not been able to figure out if you're simply against the repeal of DADT or if you think the military simply should not allow *** folks to serve at all.

It seems you feel that there is some justifiable reason that *** people should be either excluded from the military or should have to keep their gayness secret, but you've only danced around what that reason is.

Clues: A big picture, peeps that don't want to shave, it goes beyond sexuality.

Anyway thanks for sharing, Alma.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#186 Sep 26 2011 at 10:19 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
TL;DR, Shut the fuck up. You know better.


Apparently not!
#187 Sep 26 2011 at 10:27 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Debalic wrote:
Now, I guess your grunts are supposed to follow orders unquestioningly without any explanation or justification, but we're gonna need more than that.
Thankfully that isn't how it goes at all, or we'd all be dead.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#188 Sep 26 2011 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Relevant to this case, when you sign up to become a service member of the U.S military, you forfeit many of your "rights". That is part of the foundation of the U.S. military which is part of the "success" of the U.S. Military. Cherry picking certain "rights" due to current popularity only breaks that foundation.

If you want to reorganize the military and it's rules, fine, but do so by looking at the whole "big" picture. Changing some rules, while not addressing other affected and/or related/similar policies breaks down the core of the military. This goes beyond "sexuality". For example, allowing people of certain religions to not shave, while forcing others to shave and not recognizing other religions that may have similar shaving rules.

For the most part, I don't support discrimination of sexuality when hiring job positions, but the military isn't a typical job. Other jobs do not force you to live, sleep and shower with someone. No matter how much people want to deny it, it's the same exact reason why men and women don't share close quarters.

People don't understand how the military operates and then make false comparisons to discrimination of skin color and ***. As discussed numerous times in the past, simply discriminating isn't the problem, it's the wrongful discrimination without justification. That's why the military STILL discriminates against women and not discriminate by regulation on skin color.

I'm personally not affected by this ruling, but it's just another negative chip at the military which will eventually be part of a bigger chip until people start focusing on the "big picture".
This is the only statement of position that I could find from you in this thread, but you're really not saying anything specific. you say it's a negative chip, but provide no specific reason as to why. You make some general statements about the military being so different, and allude to big picture rules, but don't clarify what you mean. I know you've probably stated a bunch of stuff in a bunch of other threads, but frankly if you want to say something in this thread then say it in this thread.

As a general comment, you seem to be flipping back and forth on the shower issue. In one post you state that you're forced to shower together, and in the next statement you state that it's all curtained off and so is a non issue.

I could interpret your comments but I don't really want to deal with you crying about how I've misunderstood you for three pages, so I'm not going to.

Edited, Sep 26th 2011 11:29am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#189 Sep 26 2011 at 10:48 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Quote:
How can I dissect that which does not exist?

I've read your posts. You didn't make your argument clear. Common conversational etiquette would suggest that you should try to restate it in simpler, more direct terms. Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain that to you.


Now, from previous threads about this, I've got a rough idea of your stance, and I know well enough than to bother trying to argue with you about it. But if anyone else really wanted to, you're going to have to do a better job of stating your case to them.


How can I make something clear when you don't tell me what's unclear. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel. You tell me exactly what part of that argument which you don't understand and I'll make it clear. Unless you are unable to read English (which you wouldn't be able to respond to my posts) then you understand SOMETHING.

Debalic wrote:
This being your argument, doesn't exactly explain a whole lot. You haven't said what the "big picture" is, what the other "affected and or related/similar policies" are, or what needs to be changed and why. All you say is "this will ruin the military". Now, I guess your grunts are supposed to follow orders unquestioningly without any explanation or justification, but we're gonna need more than that.


The entire post is my argument. That is why I separated it from my other posts.

#190 Sep 26 2011 at 10:52 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Relevant to this case, when you sign up to become a service member of the U.S military, you forfeit many of your "rights". That is part of the foundation of the U.S. military which is part of the "success" of the U.S. Military. Cherry picking certain "rights" due to current popularity only breaks that foundation.

If you want to reorganize the military and it's rules, fine, but do so by looking at the whole "big" picture. Changing some rules, while not addressing other affected and/or related/similar policies breaks down the core of the military. This goes beyond "sexuality". For example, allowing people of certain religions to not shave, while forcing others to shave and not recognizing other religions that may have similar shaving rules.

For the most part, I don't support discrimination of sexuality when hiring job positions, but the military isn't a typical job. Other jobs do not force you to live, sleep and shower with someone. No matter how much people want to deny it, it's the same exact reason why men and women don't share close quarters.

People don't understand how the military operates and then make false comparisons to discrimination of skin color and ***. As discussed numerous times in the past, simply discriminating isn't the problem, it's the wrongful discrimination without justification. That's why the military STILL discriminates against women and not discriminate by regulation on skin color.

I'm personally not affected by this ruling, but it's just another negative chip at the military which will eventually be part of a bigger chip until people start focusing on the "big picture".
This is the only statement of position that I could find from you in this thread, but you're really not saying anything specific. you say it's a negative chip, but provide no specific reason as to why. You make some general statements about the military being so different, and allude to big picture rules, but don't clarify what you mean. I know you've probably stated a bunch of stuff in a bunch of other threads, but frankly if you want to say something in this thread then say it in this thread.

As a general comment, you seem to be flipping back and forth on the shower issue. In one post you state that you're forced to shower together, and in the next statement you state that it's all curtained off and so is a non issue.

I could interpret your comments but I don't really want to deal with you crying about how I've misunderstood you for three pages, so I'm not going to.

Edited, Sep 26th 2011 11:29am by Xsarus


Since it appears that you're the only person with any form of intelligence, I'll answer your questions when I get off work.

As a quick response, I am not flip flopping on any issue. I said that I am not affected, not anyone else. The argument was that I was afraid of someone seeing my junk. I stated that isn't true because I live by myself and shower in curtained off areas. I am not speaking for others in every military scenario around the world, only myself.
#191 Sep 26 2011 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Debalic wrote:
This being your argument, doesn't exactly explain a whole lot. You haven't said what the "big picture" is, what the other "affected and or related/similar policies" are, or what needs to be changed and why. All you say is "this will ruin the military". Now, I guess your grunts are supposed to follow orders unquestioningly without any explanation or justification, but we're gonna need more than that.


The entire post is my argument. That is why I separated it from my other posts.

It doesn't actually tell us anything.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#192 Sep 26 2011 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
You signed up for the military.

You've been given orders that it's ok to be out of the closet in the military. You don't have to like it, dislike it, or have an opinion on it all. But that dude Carl that always went a little "too far" with the roughhousing? He's ***, was always ***, & now you're sure 'cause he told you.

ALma wrote:
it's (DADT Repeal) just another negative chip at the military


How?
____________________________
"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


#193 Sep 26 2011 at 11:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
I'd think that anyone who has a problem with it lacks the kind of professionalism and discipline needed to be in the military and shouldn't be, not the other way around.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#194 Sep 26 2011 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Quote:
How can I dissect that which does not exist?

I've read your posts. You didn't make your argument clear. Common conversational etiquette would suggest that you should try to restate it in simpler, more direct terms. Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain that to you.


Now, from previous threads about this, I've got a rough idea of your stance, and I know well enough than to bother trying to argue with you about it. But if anyone else really wanted to, you're going to have to do a better job of stating your case to them.


How can I make something clear when you don't tell me what's unclear. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel. You tell me exactly what part of that argument which you don't understand and I'll make it clear. Unless you are unable to read English (which you wouldn't be able to respond to my posts) then you understand SOMETHING.


The comment had a joking tone, but I was being serious. I can't tell you what part of the argument that I don't understand, because you literally did not provide an argument for why gays should not be allowed to openly serve.

You say that the military is different in its treatments of rights than the civilian world. That's all well and good, but that's not a reason that gays should not be allowed to openly serve in-and-of-itself.

As others have said, you alluded to the DADT repeal being a "negative chip" against the military. They probably want you to explain how so.

Not me though. No thanks.
#195 Sep 26 2011 at 1:08 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
I think Alma is arguing that DADT shouldn't be repealed because it's a small part of a larger issue. Repealing it doesn't actually do anything if things like sodomy and oral *** are still "illegal" in the military.

He is also angry that he can't grow a beard but others who's religion prevent them from shaving can.

I think his point is, we shouldn't concern ourselves with one thing, but concentrate on everything at once. Which, of course, means nothing will ever get done. (That last line was mine, not his, before he accuses me of attributing that to him.)

Edit: Posting on an iPhone can cause issues...

Edited, Sep 26th 2011 2:12pm by Belkira
#196 Sep 26 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I think Alma is arguing that DADT shouldn't be repealed because it's a small part of a larger issue. Repealing it doesn't actually do anything if things like sodomy and oral *** are still "illegal" in the military.

He is also angry that he can't grow a beard but others who's religion prevent them from shaving can.

I think his point is, we shouldn't concern ourselves with one thing, but concentrate on everything at once. Which, of course, means nothing will ever get done. (That last line was mine, not his, before he accuses me of attributing that to him.)

Edit: Posting on an iPhone can cause issues...

It would be nice if he would actually say some of these things, when we ask him for clarification.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#197 Sep 26 2011 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Debalic wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I think Alma is arguing that DADT shouldn't be repealed because it's a small part of a larger issue. Repealing it doesn't actually do anything if things like sodomy and oral *** are still "illegal" in the military.

He is also angry that he can't grow a beard but others who's religion prevent them from shaving can.

I think his point is, we shouldn't concern ourselves with one thing, but concentrate on everything at once. Which, of course, means nothing will ever get done. (That last line was mine, not his, before he accuses me of attributing that to him.)

Edit: Posting on an iPhone can cause issues...

It would be nice if he would actually say some of these things, when we ask him for clarification.


Sure, but it sounds like the poor argument it is when you don't surround it with obfuscation and tangents. Smiley: grin
#198 Sep 26 2011 at 1:52 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Repealing it doesn't actually do anything if things like sodomy and oral *** are still "illegal" in the military.
The only reason Article 125 of the UCMJ (The law which deals with sodomy) still exists is for "extenuating circumstances unique to military environment," and contrary to popular belief, has nothing to do with "teh gays." You'll be charged with it for fraternization, rape, public sexual behavior, or other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline. In short, consensual buttsex, even in the military, is not a crime.

Edited, Sep 26th 2011 3:53pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#199 Sep 26 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Repealing it doesn't actually do anything if things like sodomy and oral *** are still "illegal" in the military.
The only reason Article 125 of the UCMJ (The law which deals with sodomy) still exists is for "extenuating circumstances unique to military environment," and contrary to popular belief, has nothing to do with "teh gays." You'll be charged with it for fraternization, rape, public sexual behavior, or other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline. In short, consensual buttsex, even in the military, is not a crime.

Edited, Sep 26th 2011 3:53pm by lolgaxe


Good to know, thanks.
#200 Sep 26 2011 at 2:01 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
fraternization....

....consensual buttsex, even in the military, is not a crime.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that fraternization?

Now that I think of it, I don't think I've ever seen the actual definition of that word.

Edited, Sep 26th 2011 4:02pm by Eske
#201 Sep 26 2011 at 2:04 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
Fraternization deals more with rank. As in, an officer and an enlisted dating or enlisted and junior enlisted and such. And it isn't that big a deal until one of them ***** up and abuses the situation. (IE: The officer commands the enlisted to date/*** them or the enlisted uses the relationship to advance themselves)
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)