Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, George.Follow

#102 Nov 21 2013 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
My issue with Planned Parenthood isn't that they provide abortions or birth control.
It's super sweet that you probably convinced yourself of this.
Last year his argument was that all funding for PP should be taken away because somewhere, at some point that some of that money might have been used to pay for a light bulb in an office that could have had an abortion procedure done in it. Because there are soup kitchens in churches.

Yeah, Gbaji has never mentioned Sanger on the forum before even in the lengthy thread about PP funding. Ironically, Moe briefly mentioned her in that thread yet Gbaji, who is only deeply concerned about this, never picked up on it or elaborated the point.

As I said, it's painfully obvious that Gbaji read a blog somewhere in the last week and has just been chomping at the bit to bust out this new-old knowledge.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Nov 21 2013 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,854 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Randomly pick 5 of your own posts. At least 4 will be excellent examples.

That's not example. Specifically provide me a quote where I pretended to come off as "intellectual" (key part) but came off ignorant. I usually admit to my own ignorance.
Usually's a bit strong don't you think? Let's go with occasionally. Also, I really have nothing to gain in this, so I'm not sifting through your posts to find an example. Reading 1-2 of your posts is annoying enough. Ask Iddiggory again.


No way, you touched it last. It's your problem now. No take backs.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#104 Nov 21 2013 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If there is something that you don't understand, then quote specifically what you don't understand. Assuming that you can read English, there are parts of the post that you DO UNDERSTAND.



Alma wrote:
Quote:

People act like there doesn't exist a scenario in life to justify discrimination against homosexuality.



I wrote:
Besides for religious reasons, I don't know of any scenarios that justify discrimination against homosexuality that aren't bigoted. Do you?



Yes, we literally just discussed this in the post that you never replied to in the other thread. Why don't you reply to my post in that thread if you want to continue this conversation.

I find it hilariously hypocritical that you claim that I don't explain myself when you said that disagreeing with black lifestyle = racism. Yet you refuse to define "black lifestyle" and how disagreeing with it is racist as opposed to personal preference and/ or bigotry.

I've explained myself, you just disagree, which you admitted in the other thread. In your mind, you think if you continuously ask me, then one day my answer would change in hopes of saying something bigoted.


I just want to know your answer. I gave examples, I explained them at your request, you asked for more explanations & I ignored them as they pulled you further & further away from you answering my initial question. I get that you, for the most part, seem to support equal rights for gays in most situations. I just want to know in what scenarios do you think homosexual discrimination is justified. Why would help me understand where you're coming from.

You said quote what you don't understand, I did, & asked you to explain it - per your request. If you think its a trap, thats fine, but I'm not the one who said "People act like there doesn't exist a scenario in life to justify discrimination against homosexuality", you were. I'm asking you to justify that with an example so I understand. Just because I can't think of a justifiable reason to do so doesn't mean there isn't one. But again, I didn't make the above quoted statement - you did.




Edited, Nov 21st 2013 11:52am 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


#105 Nov 21 2013 at 10:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
No way, you touched it last. It's your problem now. No take backs.

If you put the argument back in its nest, Alma will refuse to feed it and it'll die Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 Nov 21 2013 at 11:25 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
No way, you touched it last. It's your problem now. No take backs.

If you put the argument back in its nest, Alma will refuse to feed it and it'll die Smiley: frown
One can only hope.
____________________________
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.
#107 Nov 21 2013 at 2:43 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts


Smiley: nod.
#108 Nov 21 2013 at 4:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Omega wrote:
I just want to know your answer. I gave examples, I explained them at your request, you asked for more explanations & I ignored them as they pulled you further & further away from you answering my initial question. I get that you, for the most part, seem to support equal rights for gays in most situations. I just want to know in what scenarios do you think homosexual discrimination is justified. Why would help me understand where you're coming from.

You said quote what you don't understand, I did, & asked you to explain it - per your request. If you think its a trap, thats fine, but I'm not the one who said "People act like there doesn't exist a scenario in life to justify discrimination against homosexuality", you were. I'm asking you to justify that with an example so I understand. Just because I can't think of a justifiable reason to do so doesn't mean there isn't one. But again, I didn't make the above quoted statement - you did.


You never defined what a black lifestyle was. Not ONCE. If you want to continue this conversation, please reply to the post in the appropriate thread. I can quote myself all day there. Don't try to cop out with "pull further & further away from answering the initial question" because the initial question was about how can one disagree with homosexuality with the comparison that it was similar to disagreeing with the black lifestyle. So, your question now is completely different than the previously quote, which is unrelated to the initial discussion at hand, which was not comparing homosexuality with being black.

I have no problem quote-answering your questions again, but you must abide by the same rules.

Edited, Nov 22nd 2013 12:06am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#109 Nov 21 2013 at 4:10 PM Rating: Good
Ok...

So if I describe black culture, you'll explain why you disagree with homosexual culture? These are your new rules as I understand them. Am I correct?
____________________________
"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


#110 Nov 21 2013 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Omega wrote:
If you think its a trap, thats fine, but I'm not the one who said "People act like there doesn't exist a scenario in life to justify discrimination against homosexuality", you were. I'm asking you to justify that with an example so I understand.
I am desperately trying to avoid answering a simple question by making you jump through hoops.

See, now that's concise! Smiley: schooled

Edited, Nov 21st 2013 11:14pm by Aethien
____________________________
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.
#111 Nov 21 2013 at 5:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
So if I describe black culture

It's got the hippity-hops and the Cadillacs and the fried chicken and the Jeffersons, right?

Edited, Nov 21st 2013 5:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#112 Nov 21 2013 at 8:49 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Ok...

So if I describe black culture, you'll explain why you disagree with homosexual culture? These are your new rules as I understand them. Am I correct?


First of all, that wasn't what I asked. I asked you to define "black lifestyle", (not describe black culture) and explain how disagreeing with it is racism as opposed to personal preference or bigotry. Second of all, if you want to continue this conversation, please respond to the post on the other thread that you ignored.

Edited, Nov 22nd 2013 4:51am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#113 Nov 21 2013 at 10:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Alma has a lot of rules for posting in this forum.
#114 Nov 21 2013 at 11:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
It's got the hippity-hops and the Cadillacs and the fried chicken and the Jeffersons, right?


What Joff said.

Saying "I Disagree" with a lifestyle generally attributed to any group, by race, religion, or sexual orientation & supporting legislation that overwhelming disenfranchises that group probably comes from some sort of animus towards that group (or in the case of politicians, pandering to groups that support those restrictions for votes).

Can't build a Mosque here? That's a **** you to muslims. Not believing Mohammad is the profit? Personal preference.

Prevent Voter Fraud? That's probably racism. Disliking Rap Music? Personal preference

Against *** marriage? Statistically - probably a dude that thinks *** men having *** is icky - or a homophobe. Disliking **** play? Personal preference.

I'm going to Vegas for 4 days in the morning, so think about where else you wanna move the goalposts before you not answer why you think *** men are icky isn't homophobic for awhile.


____________________________
"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


#115 Nov 22 2013 at 1:11 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Omega wrote:
I'm going to Vegas for 4 days in the morning, so think about where else you wanna move the goalposts before you not answer why you think *** men are icky isn't homophobic for awhile.


I see you are still avoiding the question. That's fine.

I find it hilarious for a person who argued that disagreeing with black life style = racism who later asked "why do you disagree with homosexuality" to "why do you think it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals" to "why do you think *** men are icky isn't homophobic" is accusing ME of moving the goal post!Smiley: lol You haven't stayed on one topic this entire time!


Side note: I wonder what you would call a heterosexual woman who thinks performing oral *** on a man is "icky"? Is she a suckad!ckaphobe? What about a heterosexual woman who thinks **** *** is "icky", a d!ckinthe@$$aphobe? Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#116 Nov 22 2013 at 3:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,926 posts
Belkira wrote:
Alma has a lot of rules for posting in this forum.
I like his "if you don't argue with me I'll go away"one best. Because some people have stopped and he still tries to argue with them.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#117 Nov 22 2013 at 3:28 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Alma has a lot of rules for posting in this forum.
I like his "if you don't argue with me I'll go away"one best. Because some people have stopped and he still tries to argue with them.


You and I both know that isn't true. I make general comments, people respond. That's exactly what happened in this thread and in the dictionary thread. People can't help but to insult.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#118 Nov 22 2013 at 4:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,695 posts
You can't help but walk into insults. Perfect pairing.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#119 Nov 22 2013 at 5:40 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Alma wrote:
I see you are still avoiding the question. That's fine.

Then why don't you give the right example and answer his question. You said there are situations in which discriminating against *** people is justified so you must have examples and it can't possibly be difficult for you to post one or two.
____________________________
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.
#120 Nov 22 2013 at 6:13 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You can't help but walk into insults. Perfect pairing.

That's kind of the point Einstein... Your response was well known before you even read my post. I placed you in my top 5 people of the forum who knows what's going on. You're disappointing me right now.Smiley: oyvey

His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Alma wrote:
I see you are still avoiding the question. That's fine.

Then why don't you give the right example and answer his question. You said there are situations in which discriminating against *** people is justified so you must have examples and it can't possibly be difficult for you to post one or two.


He has asked several questions and I've answered all of them. He has even acknowledged my answer to the question you are asking which is in the latest work equality thread. That's why he ignored it. He has no counter, so instead, he brings up the same topic in another thread. He is not looking for answers. He's just asking the same questions in the hopes that I would change my answer and say something bigoted. Surely you can see this lame tactic.


Edited, Nov 22nd 2013 2:18pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#121 Nov 22 2013 at 6:15 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,854 posts
Answer?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#122 Nov 22 2013 at 6:20 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Answer?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


How am I misusing it?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#123 Nov 22 2013 at 6:21 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,854 posts
Almalieque wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Answer?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


How am I misusing it?


By thinking you mean to use it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#124 Nov 22 2013 at 6:23 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Answer?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


How am I misusing it?


By thinking you mean to use it.


???? Please explain.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#125 Nov 22 2013 at 6:35 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,695 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You can't help but walk into insults. Perfect pairing.

That's kind of the point Einstein... Your response was well known before you even read my post. I placed you in my top 5 people of the forum who knows what's going on. You're disappointing me right now.Smiley: oyvey
You shouldn't be disappointed. You know I'm going to take the shots when I see them, even when they're obvious. You should be happy I helped drive your point home.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#126 Nov 22 2013 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:

His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Alma wrote:
I see you are still avoiding the question. That's fine.

Then why don't you give the right example and answer his question. You said there are situations in which discriminating against *** people is justified so you must have examples and it can't possibly be difficult for you to post one or two.


He has asked several questions and I've answered all of them.
you haven't given any examples yet so you haven't answered all his questions yet.

And as I said, this can't be a difficult thing for you to do so why not just type out some examples?
____________________________
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.
#127 Nov 22 2013 at 6:54 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You can't help but walk into insults. Perfect pairing.

That's kind of the point Einstein... Your response was well known before you even read my post. I placed you in my top 5 people of the forum who knows what's going on. You're disappointing me right now.Smiley: oyvey
You shouldn't be disappointed. You know I'm going to take the shots when I see them, even when they're obvious. You should be happy I helped drive your point home.


Smiley: grin I feel better now. I thought I misjudged..
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Alma wrote:
I see you are still avoiding the question. That's fine.

Then why don't you give the right example and answer his question. You said there are situations in which discriminating against *** people is justified so you must have examples and it can't possibly be difficult for you to post one or two.


He has asked several questions and I've answered all of them.
you haven't given any examples yet so you haven't answered all his questions yet.

And as I said, this can't be a difficult thing for you to do so why not just type out some examples?


Uhhhhhh.... you want to place a bet on that? I mean, I told you EXACTLY where it's at and you're still saying that I didn't give an example? Go read the post that he refused to respond to in the ENDA thread.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#128 Nov 22 2013 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
you haven't given any examples yet so you haven't answered all his questions yet.

And as I said, this can't be a difficult thing for you to do so why not just type out some examples?


Uhhhhhh.... you want to place a bet on that? I mean, I told you EXACTLY where it's at and you're still saying that I didn't give an example? Go read the post that he refused to respond to in the ENDA thread.
This post?

I don't see anything resembling a justification to discriminate against *** people in there, what do you owe me now?
____________________________
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.
#129 Nov 22 2013 at 7:32 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,854 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
you haven't given any examples yet so you haven't answered all his questions yet.

And as I said, this can't be a difficult thing for you to do so why not just type out some examples?


Uhhhhhh.... you want to place a bet on that? I mean, I told you EXACTLY where it's at and you're still saying that I didn't give an example? Go read the post that he refused to respond to in the ENDA thread.
This post?

I don't see anything resembling a justification to discriminate against *** people in there, what do you owe me now?


Well, you aren't owed one, but he's probably going to give you an aneurysm. I know I'm nearly there after reading that post...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#130 Nov 22 2013 at 7:40 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
you haven't given any examples yet so you haven't answered all his questions yet.

And as I said, this can't be a difficult thing for you to do so why not just type out some examples?


Uhhhhhh.... you want to place a bet on that? I mean, I told you EXACTLY where it's at and you're still saying that I didn't give an example? Go read the post that he refused to respond to in the ENDA thread.
This post?

I don't see anything resembling a justification to discriminate against *** people in there, what do you owe me now?


Assuming that you're not totally dense, I will assume that you mean that you don't see a reason that you agree with.

I'll back it up a post or two for reference.

Almalieque wrote:
I've said several times that my reasoning against the appeal was not to prevent homosexuals from serving openly. I've said several times that I supported the appeal as part of wholistically reviewing the military, not part of a Republican-end-government-shutdown- piecemeal approach. There are so many restrictions among sexes, that blindly appealing DADT without adjusting other parts of the military would only create more contradictions and discrimination. This is one of the reasons why I proposed the "Co-ed" military. That way, no matter if your significant other is a man or a woman, you have the same rights and privacy as the next person. Of course you don't remember/care, because bigots like yourself like to make up stuff to justify your bigotry.

Omega wrote:
Did it?

Almalieque wrote:
Yes. There are restrictions between men and women, that don't exist between same *** couples. There's a lot, but the one that got the most attention is that *** couples are given 10 free days of leave to get married while heterosexual couples have to suck it up. You also have visiting rules of the opposite ***, but none with the same ***. You have living restrictions with the opposite ***, none with the same ***. The list goes on. Make the military co-ed and most of that goes away in one swoop.


Do you need me to break it down further?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#131 Nov 22 2013 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,854 posts
...

...you're worried about discrimination against heterosexuals...

...from the military...

Welp, there's the aneurysm.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#132 Nov 22 2013 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,058 posts
Ur all round.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#133 Nov 22 2013 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Yes. There are restrictions between men and women, that don't exist between same *** couples. There's a lot, but the one that got the most attention is that *** couples are given 10 free days of leave to get married while heterosexual couples have to suck it up. You also have visiting rules of the opposite ***, but none with the same ***. You have living restrictions with the opposite ***, none with the same ***. The list goes on. Make the military co-ed and most of that goes away in one swoop.


Do you need me to break it down further?
What you have there are rules and regulations in the military that aren't adjusted to the post DADT era yet, and in the case of the 10 day leave, a necessary adaptation because *** couples may have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to get married. Hardly a reason to discriminate against *** people.
____________________________
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.
#134 Nov 22 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Yes. There are restrictions between men and women, that don't exist between same *** couples. There's a lot, but the one that got the most attention is that *** couples are given 10 free days of leave to get married while heterosexual couples have to suck it up. You also have visiting rules of the opposite ***, but none with the same ***. You have living restrictions with the opposite ***, none with the same ***. The list goes on. Make the military co-ed and most of that goes away in one swoop.


Do you need me to break it down further?
What you have there are rules and regulations in the military that aren't adjusted to the post DADT era yet, and in the case of the 10 day leave, a necessary adaptation because *** couples may have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to get married. Hardly a reason to discriminate against *** people.


Disagreeing with it doesn't mean that I didn't answer your question, which is the point of this discussion before you go off moving goal posts. So, you acknowledge that I have answered your question. Funny how you understood this time but not before, even though 'twas all the same.

1.You say "yet" as if it will ever happen. Do you think the US military will ever be co-ed? This goes back to the point that civilians believe that servicemen retain the same amount of freedom and rights as they do. People are discriminated against all of the time, you just don't hear about it in the news because it isn't the flavor of the month. Women have been and are still openly discriminated against more than homosexuals and they barely make the news.

2. Uhhhh. Everyone takes leave. You must have forgotten that we move every 3-4 years. Unless you're talking about a courthouse wedding, people tend to go to their family. What about when a service member is overseas and their significant other is in the US or vice versa? That happens a lot. They don't get free leave to get married. Admittedly, the leave procedure isn't a reason to discriminate against *** people because it shouldn't be authorized in the first place. I was stating the biggest discrimination that people openly argued against.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#135 Nov 22 2013 at 3:34 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,854 posts
Except... you didn't answer the question.

You spouted a bunch of wackadoo stuff about DADT. That wasn't the question.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#136Almalieque, Posted: Nov 22 2013 at 3:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I answered the question, you just don't like the answer
#137 Nov 22 2013 at 4:10 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Oh, you're going back to your utterly moronic solve everything at once or nothing at all spiel? I thought you had moved past that particular delusion.

You're basically saying that they should reinstate DADT and firing people for being *** because else *** people could be living together and visit each other before they're in a long term relationship?

Because somehow I don't think that issue weighs up to the whole discriminating people for how they're born thing.


But it's good to know your problem with *** people is that you're jealous of them.
____________________________
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.
#138 Nov 22 2013 at 4:33 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Oh, you're going back to your utterly moronic solve everything at once or nothing at all spiel? I thought you had moved past that particular delusion.

You're basically saying that they should reinstate DADT and firing people for being *** because else *** people could be living together and visit each other before they're in a long term relationship?

Because somehow I don't think that issue weighs up to the whole discriminating people for how they're born thing.


But it's good to know your problem with *** people is that you're jealous of them.


Is it really that hard to read and comprehend?

1. I was asked to provide an example. He quoted something from 2 YEARS ago. I supported DADT when it was in place. I never said anything about reinstating DADT. That is much more complicated. You're making stuff up again.

2. There's nothing to be jealous about. Everything that I mentioned, doesn't personally affect and/or apply to me.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#139 Nov 22 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,854 posts
Your reasoning for supporting DADT for discriminating against non-heterosexuals was because repealing it would, apparently, discriminate against heterosexuals.

It's literally the stupidest argument I've ever heard.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#140 Nov 23 2013 at 2:30 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Your reasoning for supporting DADT for discriminating against non-heterosexuals was because repealing it would, apparently, discriminate against heterosexuals.

It's literally the stupidest argument I've ever heard.


I want to say that you are reaching, but unfortunately, it appears that you are being serious.

1. That was not my argument. My argument was against appealing DADT in a piece meal solution as opposed to a complete solution. The same way I oppose fully integrating women in male dominated scenarios in a piece meal solution without changing obvious rules and regulations.

2. You fail to differentiate the concepts of equality and fairness. Equality is treating everyone the same regardless of any differences. Fairness is acknowledging that everyone is not the same and attempting to make accommodations to make up for those differences. For example, women are not held to the same physical standards as men. That is not equal, but is fair.

In reference to this situation, homosexuals are not any more or less important than heterosexuals. *IF* sexual privacy is a factor, one of the primary reasons for segregating men and women, then there is no way to be equally fair to everyone under the current rules and regulations with the inclusion of open homosexuals. To argue to disregard the 99.5% of the population (number I made up) in support for the .5% of the population insinuates that homosexuals are more important than heterosexuals, which contradicts the concept of equality. This is why I support a co-ed military. Allow adults to act as adults and choose who they want to be with, when they want be with, how they want to be with.

Only a bigot would label that the "stupidest argument".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#141 Nov 23 2013 at 6:01 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,854 posts
Demanding everything be perfect from the start, or no progress should be made at all, is idiotic.

Furthermore, equality doesn't hold that people are, themselves, equal to one another. It holds that the government has a duty to treat them as equal and do its best to rectify severe inequality insofar as it is necessary. That's why affirmative action laws exist. It's not because blacks are fundamentally less capable than whites, it's because blacks are facing a system that is dominated by whites and filled with systemic racism.

Holding every human being to the same standards for everything is absurd. Humans aren't carbon copies of each other. They have diverse strengths and weaknesses, and sometimes one is just honestly less capable than another. Doesn't mean that those two people aren't equal under the law.

Also, I don't think you know what bigot means.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#142Almalieque, Posted: Nov 23 2013 at 6:22 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Seriously? How many times are you willing to get burned on definitions? If you are questioning my knowledge of the word, chances are that you are the confused one. Protip: Look it up.
#143 Nov 25 2013 at 8:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
My issue with Planned Parenthood isn't that they provide abortions or birth control.
It's super sweet that you probably convinced yourself of this.
Last year his argument was that all funding for PP should be taken away because somewhere, at some point that some of that money might have been used to pay for a light bulb in an office that could have had an abortion procedure done in it. Because there are soup kitchens in churches.

Yeah, Gbaji has never mentioned Sanger on the forum before even in the lengthy thread about PP funding. Ironically, Moe briefly mentioned her in that thread yet Gbaji, who is only deeply concerned about this, never picked up on it or elaborated the point.


I do recall her being mentioned in that thread Joph. I didn't comment or elaborate because the point I was making in that thread had nothing at all to do with Sanger's motivations for creating PP. That thread was about public funding of PP and how that funding is fungible and therefore absent actually breaking PP into separate economic entities, you can't realistically say that funding from the government doesn't "pay for abortions". In this thread, I'm making a broader argument about the motivations behind our modern "right to abort" movement in the first place. I didn't need to make this argument in that thread because it was already a given that everyone accepted that tax dollars should not be paying for abortions. We were arguing over whether those dollars *were* paying for abortions.

Unlike you, I don't inject random semi-related information designed to distract from the point at hand and make some kind of "gotcha!" argument (Yeah? Well, PP was created by a racist who wanted to eliminate colored folks. So there!!!!). I get that for some, that's a powerful argument. But for me, it's not. I mentioned it in this thread only because it was relevant to my point about the difference between a "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" position.

I'll also point out that nowhere in this thread did I mention anything about the difference between abortion and ministering when it comes to tax codes. Want to know why? Because it had nothing to do with the point I was making.


Quote:
As I said, it's painfully obvious that Gbaji read a blog somewhere in the last week and has just been chomping at the bit to bust out this new-old knowledge.


Uh... No. Really? Some of us don't feel the need to inject every single gotcha fact we know about a subject every time it comes up. I know that you favor the kitchen sink approach, but I like to at least attempt to stick with a focused point and argument to support said point.

Edited, Nov 25th 2013 6:02pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#144 Nov 25 2013 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Uh... No.

Smiley: laugh Right, Gbaji... right.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#145 Nov 26 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,854 posts
Quote:
So, what you are saying is that you prefer to get women in more male dominate roles, where the rules aren't adjusted (i.e., living conditions, showering conditions, hygienic opportunities, height/weight expectations, etc.) as opposed to addressing the most obvious topics first and ironing out the wrinkles later? You pretend as if it's any different.


Since when is this even what we are talking about?

And, frankly, I don't give a **** if they remove the gender check and keep literally everything else the same. I'm assuming that those were policies put in for good reasons that weren't subjective to gender, but to the needs of the specific task and environment. If the army wants unisex showers, I really don't care.

Furthermore, if they wanted to make a change and then iron out the details later, I still don't care. The world isn't a simple place, and the actual task of designing policies meant to function over a wide diversity of situations is difficult. Sometimes, just seeing what works and what doesn't is the only way to head into uncharted territory.

If two people need to be treated differently with specific reference to their needs, then it's still equal to treat them appropriate to that. It doesn't matter if that means one person gets no leave and another gets 10 days. Because the leave is there to serve a purpose, and if the one person doesn't need it, they don't need it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#146 Nov 26 2013 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,864 posts
Only 3 pages from domestic violence to unisex showers? Bonus points for everyone staying focusing and getting to the goal ahead of schedule.

Smiley: yippee
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#147 Nov 26 2013 at 2:57 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Idiggory wrote:
Since when is this even what we are talking about?

And, frankly, I don't give a sh*t if they remove the gender check and keep literally everything else the same. I'm assuming that those were policies put in for good reasons that weren't subjective to gender, but to the needs of the specific task and environment. If the army wants unisex showers, I really don't care.


I made that point because of the comments that I'm somehow a bigot/homophobe in wanting to do something that I would also support in any other scenario.

Idiggory wrote:
If two people need to be treated differently with specific reference to their needs, then it's still equal to treat them appropriate to that. It doesn't matter if that means one person gets no leave and another gets 10 days. Because the leave is there to serve a purpose, and if the one person doesn't need it, they don't need it.


Equality != Fairness.. I'm glad to see that you are not about equality, but rules that favor what you like. If this were translated in your work place as "People who have family outside of place x gets additional Christmas leave", there would be chaos. That is wrong because just because you don't have family outside of place x. doesn't mean that you don't "need" those days. Nor does that mean the people who have family outside of x "need" those days. What if those people who have family outside of place x, stays home with additional days. How is that fair?

The leave policy isn't based on people who need it, but to homosexuals. As I said, Joe serving in Germany doesn't get 10 days of free leave to go home and marry his girlfriend.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#148 Nov 26 2013 at 5:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,854 posts
Quote:
Almalieque wrote:
Idiggory wrote:
Since when is this even what we are talking about?

And, frankly, I don't give a sh*t if they remove the gender check and keep literally everything else the same. I'm assuming that those were policies put in for good reasons that weren't subjective to gender, but to the needs of the specific task and environment. If the army wants unisex showers, I really don't care.


I made that point because of the comments that I'm somehow a bigot/homophobe in wanting to do something that I would also support in any other scenario.


That's not how transitive logical works. Your response is a textbook example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Look it up. You're wrong.

[quote]
Idiggory wrote:
If two people need to be treated differently with specific reference to their needs, then it's still equal to treat them appropriate to that. It doesn't matter if that means one person gets no leave and another gets 10 days. Because the leave is there to serve a purpose, and if the one person doesn't need it, they don't need it.


Equality != Fairness.. I'm glad to see that you are not about equality, but rules that favor what you like. If this were translated in your work place as "People who have family outside of place x gets additional Christmas leave", there would be chaos. That is wrong because just because you don't have family outside of place x. doesn't mean that you don't "need" those days. Nor does that mean the people who have family outside of x "need" those days. What if those people who have family outside of place x, stays home with additional days. How is that fair?

The leave policy isn't based on people who need it, but to homosexuals. As I said, Joe serving in Germany doesn't get 10 days of free leave to go home and marry his girlfriend.


No, I'd absolutely argue that the notion of equality is fundamentally fair. If, for the sake of equality, two people get treated differently, it's absolutely fair - because it helps balance the gap that doesn't make them equal.

If I'm in a room with 10 people, and one of them makes 20k a year more, it's absolutely fair for me to give $20 to only the 9 who don't make as much. Because there's an equality gap there.

Now, if your point is that we live in an unfair world where not everyone gets treated equally, then sure. But the point is that our laws and policies are in quest of equality; they can't change nature. We do our best with what we have, and we try to make things a little more fair.

And because we aren't thick as @#%^, we understand that this can't mean that everyone gets treated exactly the same, it means everyone gets treated according to their needs, to the extent society can provide.

edit:

Oh, and btw, you're still just using the same fallacy as above as your argument. IF the marriage policy is a bad policy, it's because it's a bad policy. That's literally all it means. It in no way reflects back on the actual topic of DADT, because those two things weren't a direct causal change. You can absolutely change the marriage policy to be the same between two couples without DADT in the mix, you can't change the them as such if DADT IS in the mix. It's a fundamentally different situation.

It's also, literally, the first ******* fallacy you'd learn in a logic class.

Edited, Nov 26th 2013 7:00pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#149 Nov 26 2013 at 7:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Idiggory wrote:
No, I'd absolutely argue that the notion of equality is fundamentally fair. If, for the sake of equality, two people get treated differently, it's absolutely fair - because it helps balance the gap that doesn't make them equal.

If I'm in a room with 10 people, and one of them makes 20k a year more, it's absolutely fair for me to give $20 to only the 9 who don't make as much. Because there's an equality gap there.

Now, if your point is that we live in an unfair world where not everyone gets treated equally, then sure. But the point is that our laws and policies are in quest of equality; they can't change nature. We do our best with what we have, and we try to make things a little more fair.

And because we aren't thick as @#%^, we understand that this can't mean that everyone gets treated exactly the same, it means everyone gets treated according to their needs, to the extent society can provide.


Then you would be arguing against the definition. Equality is treating everyone the same regardless of any differences. Fairness is acknowledging that everyone is not the same and making accommodations for the differences. As a society, we decide whether or not unequal treatment is fair or not. Paying an employee who does the same job as you more because he has more children is not considered fair. Paying an employee more because he has been with the organization longer is considered fair. Giving Joe additional days of leave because he is homosexual is not equal or fair. Equal treatment is giving both men and women equal amount of leave days. Fairness is giving women additional maternity leave. Those are two separate concepts that often work together.

Idiggory wrote:

Oh, and btw, you're still just using the same fallacy as above as your argument. IF the marriage policy is a bad policy, it's because it's a bad policy. That's literally all it means. It in no way reflects back on the actual topic of DADT, because those two things weren't a direct causal change. You can absolutely change the marriage policy to be the same between two couples without DADT in the mix, you can't change the them as such if DADT IS in the mix. It's a fundamentally different situation.

It's also, literally, the first @#%^ing fallacy you'd learn in a logic class.

Almalieque The Most Magnificent wrote:
Admittedly, the leave procedure isn't a reason to discriminate against *** people because it shouldn't be authorized in the first place. I was stating the biggest discrimination that people openly argued against.


Learn to read?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#150 Nov 26 2013 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,854 posts
Yeah, I don't bother reading half he **** you type, because 90% of it is pointless fluff you feel the need to throw in to sound smart, and the other 10% is just cringeworthy ********* Why don't you just type like a normal human being? We all already know you're an idiot.

And your definitions are ridiculous. Equality is a legal concept. It means that the law has to provide equal opportunity before the law for each of its citizens. If there's a legal hurdle facing one person that another does not face, and its due to no reason other than something like a social class, then it is the law's duty to ensure that person receives equal opportunity.

Furthermore, fairness by definition is a subjective measure. If all we care about is the labor-to-pay ratio, then sure - it's ridiculous for one person to make more. But if we remember that it's ridiculously stupid to be narrowing our vision to the smallest field possible, we see a much larger landscape, gain more context for that decision, and far more factors to gauge it subjectively against.

Marxism, for instance, is based on the concept of equal effort to equal reward, each measured to the capability and needs of a person. If you can give a lot, but need little, you give more and receive less. But it's equal and fair, because your effort is in equal measure to everyone else's effort.

There's a reason no one uses "fairness" as a judge of anything in a legal discussion. Because anyone with a brain understands that's idiotic. Life isn't fair. It never will be fair. The law is limited and can't account for nature. Our economic system is capitalist. We have different social classes and values.

Fairness isn't something to strive for, because it doesn't mean anything. Equality does, because we've bothered to define it with hundreds of years of legal precedent.

Quote:
Admittedly, the leave procedure isn't a reason to discriminate against *** people because it shouldn't be authorized in the first place. I was stating the biggest discrimination that people openly argued against.


Wait, so you DIDN'T answer the question, then? Because from what I can tell, all you did was point to "effects" of the DADT repeal and use them to show why it was unfair to the straight people for DADT to have been repealed.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#151 Nov 26 2013 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,695 posts
That's a lot of words to address someone you know is incapable of fully comprehending it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 60 All times are in CDT
Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (59)