And why the fuck haven't you guys burnt a vapid twat like Alimiqueer to a cinder by now? I mean really, I've seen far better morons stumble in to this fuckhole.
-NW
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
Prop 8 OverturnedFollow
#2028Almalieque,
Posted: Sep 17 2010 at 10:36 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uh, if 99.9% of people already changed, then there wouldn't be any progress to be made because it wouldn't have ever been in that situation to begin with, because people already learned from history.
#2029
Sep 17 2010 at 10:46 AM
NaughtyWord wrote:
And why the fuck haven't you guys burnt a vapid twat like Alimiqueer to a cinder by now? I mean really, I've seen far better morons stumble in to this fuckhole.
-NW
-NW
Who the fuck are you, and why should we care?
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
#2030
Sep 17 2010 at 10:50 AM
Is English that hard for you to understand or do the letters reorganize themselves into different words for you? I guess i can't expect an honest answer given both scenarios mean you won't be able to comprehend the question.
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
#2031Almalieque,
Posted: Sep 17 2010 at 10:59 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm just keeping it real. When you have people on national television say things like "we aren't ready for a woman president" during the last presidential election, I find it hard to believe your statement. I mean, that's also ignoring my own personal experiences and other personal testimonies.
#2032
Sep 17 2010 at 11:04 AM
NaughtyWord wrote:
And why the fuck haven't you guys burnt a vapid twat like Alimiqueer to a cinder by now? I mean really, I've seen far better morons stumble in to this fuckhole.
-NW
-NW
He's a tenacious dunce, I'm afraid, probably owing to the same ****** immunity Varrus has.
#2033
Sep 17 2010 at 11:07 AM
I don't think anyone but you expects a complete change. Just such a large majority that the naysayers are marginalized and completely ignored. Stupidity and ignorance will always exist. Just look at varus for living proof. But that doesn't mean we keep things as are when we can improve them for just about everyone else.
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
#2034
Sep 17 2010 at 11:17 AM
So we shouldn't try to change bad things because other things are bad too? That's what I'm getting from Alma here.
#2035
Sep 17 2010 at 11:21 AM
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
I don't think anyone but you expects a complete change. Just such a large majority that the naysayers are marginalized and completely ignored. Stupidity and ignorance will always exist. Just look at varus for living proof. But that doesn't mean we keep things as are when we can improve them for just about everyone else.
I didn't say we should.. I've said numerous times, it's all or nothing. It's just as simple to change one relationship rule as to change three. At the same time, it is completely contradictory to promote a conservative way of life, banning various types of relationships and how they can interact that most of society don't care about, but allow homosexual relationships to be allowed just because you believe "it's not fair".
So, why again are we just stuck on this one rule? Why not attack all of the issues that actually pertain to more than 5% at most of the US military?
Just like when I saw on the Internet US Army servicemen of middle east decent that were authorized to have a beard because of their religious preference. That's completely wrong, either make them shave their beard or allow everyone else to grow facial hair. The more and more the military allow for individualism because of reason x or y while not adjusting for everyone, the more we become divided.
#2037
Sep 17 2010 at 11:35 AM
Also, "it won't completely change in an instant" is a really retarded reason for not changing/doing away with a rule that prevents that change from happening.
#2038
Sep 17 2010 at 11:35 AM
Quote:
It's just as simple to change one relationship rule as to change three.
What are you smoking? No it's not. Changing one aspect of something is far easier then changing a bunch of things, let alone the whole thing. The whole All or Nothing viewpoint is retarded and means nothing will ever get done.
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
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#2039
Sep 17 2010 at 11:40 AM
Also:
I'm not going to sit here and let you keep trying to change DADT into being solely about active relationships, or sexual acts. You need only say that you are homosexual to get the boot.
Stop trying to use this strawman.
Alma wrote:
At the same time, it is completely contradictory to promote a conservative way of life, banning various types of relationships and how they can interact that most of society don't care about, but allow homosexual relationships to be allowed just because you believe "it's not fair".
I'm not going to sit here and let you keep trying to change DADT into being solely about active relationships, or sexual acts. You need only say that you are homosexual to get the boot.
Stop trying to use this strawman.
#2040
Sep 17 2010 at 12:22 PM
Almalieque wrote:
I've said numerous times, it's all or nothing.
You do know that how we got to the state we're in now (ban on segregation, political equality of the sexes, etc) has been through tenacity and slow progression, right? To give up just because you aren't getting overnight results is foolish.
#2041
Sep 17 2010 at 12:34 PM
Sir Exodus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I've said numerous times, it's all or nothing.
You do know that how we got to the state we're in now (ban on segregation, political equality of the sexes, etc) has been through tenacity and slow progression, right? To give up just because you aren't getting overnight results is foolish.
#2042
Sep 17 2010 at 12:41 PM
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
You're only divided because you want to be. You cling to it so that you have a reason to feel an injustice has happened to you.
What? o.O
What part are you exactly referencing to? Please further explain
Quote:
So we shouldn't try to change bad things because other things are bad too? That's what I'm getting from Alma here.
I'm not discussing if anything is "bad" or "good". What I'm saying is that you can't have rules that contradict each other. Rather or not you think they are "bad" is irrelevant.
Aethien wrote:
Also, "it won't completely change in an instant" is a really retarded reason for not changing/doing away with a rule that prevents that change from happening.
Where was the thought "it wont completely change in an instant" even mentioned. If you want to make a single change that will make further change, you change the rule that effects the majority, not a rule that effects less than 5%. You all simply have motives and don't want to admit to them and they're not "homosexual rights", but forcing everyone to accept homosexuality.
Xsarus wrote:
What are you smoking? No it's not. Changing one aspect of something is far easier then changing a bunch of things, let alone the whole thing.
The whole All or Nothing viewpoint is retarded and means nothing will ever get done. Smiley: oyvey
----------------------------
The whole All or Nothing viewpoint is retarded and means nothing will ever get done. Smiley: oyvey
----------------------------
Uhh.. maybe you're confusing civilian life with military life. You have the UCMJ that includes articles, you simply change the articles and republish it. Even if you believed that it was better and more efficient to change one law at a time, you wouldn't start with something that only affects less than 5% of the population that clearly contradicts another rule. You would stop from the top down, because doing so will naturally support the change of the other laws.
Eske wrote:
I'm not going to sit here and let you keep trying to change DADT into being solely about active relationships, or sexual acts. You need only say that you are homosexual to get the boot.
Stop trying to use this strawman.
Stop trying to use this strawman.
As that applies to so many other people in other unrelated scenarios, what is your point?
933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN wrote:
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE wrote:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
Known as the "Catch all", these are purposely left open to use to kick anyone out for doing anything that is deemed "unbecoming of an officer and a gentlemen". Just like that Airforce Sergeant who thought it was cool to pose in playboy... yea..
This is evident that the military focuses on self-images and perception.
#2043
Sep 17 2010 at 12:44 PM
Almalieque wrote:
What part are you exactly referencing to? Please further explain
Quote:
The more and more the military allow for individualism because of reason x or y while not adjusting for everyone, the more we become divided.
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
#2044
Sep 17 2010 at 12:45 PM
Sir Exodus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I've said numerous times, it's all or nothing.
You do know that how we got to the state we're in now (ban on segregation, political equality of the sexes, etc) has been through tenacity and slow progression, right? To give up just because you aren't getting overnight results is foolish.
You're confusing the civilian world with the military world. Again, if you're so into "rights" and changes in the military, why are you focusing on something that only affects less than 5%, instead of all of the other countless "rights"?
No one has yet answered that question...
If you want to do it one by one, DADT wouldn't be where you would start if you have a ban on sodomy.
#2045
Sep 17 2010 at 12:47 PM
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What part are you exactly referencing to? Please further explain
Quote:
The more and more the military allow for individualism because of reason x or y while not adjusting for everyone, the more we become divided.
So, you're saying that we really aren't divided that we're just clinging to a self made feel of injustice?
#2047
Sep 17 2010 at 12:55 PM
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Not we. Just you.
So, you're basically making stuff up.. k got it..
I think allowing someone to have a beard because of his religion, but no one else is pretty blatant, but if you want to continue to live in fantasy land.. go right ahead.
#2048
Sep 17 2010 at 12:56 PM
Almalieque wrote:
Sir Exodus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I've said numerous times, it's all or nothing.
You do know that how we got to the state we're in now (ban on segregation, political equality of the sexes, etc) has been through tenacity and slow progression, right? To give up just because you aren't getting overnight results is foolish.
You're confusing the civilian world with the military world. Again, if you're so into "rights" and changes in the military...
The Women's Armed Services Integration Act which passed on June 12, 1948 (not THAT long ago) would like to have a word with you. Again. Change can happen, it simply takes time and tenacity. You can sit there and say that it's different in the military, but the military is subject to change/reform/growth as anything else. It simply takes effort and people willing to fight for it.
Had everyone had the mentality you would have now, you'd still be drinking from a separate fountain.
#2049
Sep 17 2010 at 1:00 PM
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Not we. Just you.
So, you're basically making stuff up.. k got it..
I think allowing someone to have a beard because of his religion, but no one else is pretty blatant, but if you want to continue to live in fantasy land.. go right ahead.
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
#2050
Sep 17 2010 at 1:09 PM
Alma wrote:
Known as the "Catch all", these are purposely left open to use to kick anyone out for doing anything that is deemed "unbecoming of an officer and a gentlemen". Just like that Airforce Sergeant who thought it was cool to pose in playboy... yea..
This is evident that the military focuses on self-images and perception.
This is evident that the military focuses on self-images and perception.
That ain't comparable to stating that you are a homosexual. And heck, if the army thinks that the condition of being homosexual is "unbecoming of an officer and a gentlemen" then that's another strike against your point. Nice try though.
You're not going to come up with something that's analogous to "stating that you are a homosexual", so going down this road of comparing DADT to other injustices and discharge-able offenses is going to be pretty fruitless for you.
Edited, Sep 17th 2010 3:24pm by Eske
#2051
Sep 17 2010 at 1:39 PM
Sir Exodus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Sir Exodus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I've said numerous times, it's all or nothing.
You do know that how we got to the state we're in now (ban on segregation, political equality of the sexes, etc) has been through tenacity and slow progression, right? To give up just because you aren't getting overnight results is foolish.
You're confusing the civilian world with the military world. Again, if you're so into "rights" and changes in the military...
The Women's Armed Services Integration Act which passed on June 12, 1948 (not THAT long ago) would like to have a word with you. Again. Change can happen, it simply takes time and tenacity. You can sit there and say that it's different in the military, but the military is subject to change/reform/growth as anything else. It simply takes effort and people willing to fight for it.
Had everyone had the mentality you would have now, you'd still be drinking from a separate fountain.
I'm not saying that change doesn't happen, I'm saying it's not difficult to make these changes in UCMJ. The reluctance you find in law-changing is due to man and other man-made laws. The actual changing of the written laws do not necessarily correspond to the change in practice, i.e Jim Crow Laws.
If you can't see how it would be hypocritical to have a ban on sodomy but allow open homosexuality, then there is really nothing left. Being homosexual doesn't mean that you partake in sexual actions, but if you're open about it, that's the perception it gives and perception is what the military operates off of.
Ulgy wrote:
Do you want to grow a beard? Is someone else being repressed from expressing their religion in some way?=
Of course I want to grow facial hair. Honestly speaking, if I were asked right now what one rule I would like to change in the military, it would be that one, facial hair. I simply hate having to shave every day.
There has been a lot of discussion about the ability to have facial hair in garrison.
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 225
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (225)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC