Oh, George.Follow

This post?

I don't see anything resembling a justification to discriminate against gay 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.





Do you need me to break it down further?

Ur all round.

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 gay people because it shouldn't be authorized in the first place. I was stating the biggest discrimination that people openly argued against.

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.

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".

Right, Gbaji... right.

Only 3 pages from domestic violence to unisex showers? Bonus points for everyone staying focusing and getting to the goal ahead of schedule.

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

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.



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.