Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

#2177 Sep 19 2010 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

This isn't "catering to me", but catering to logic. If you were running late to an appointment and your co-worker said, "you might not want to take the short route, there's an accident slowing up traffic, you're better off taking the longer route because you'll end up getting there quicker", which route would you take?


Answer the question...


The analogy doesn't fit, though. Here's the proper analogy:

If you were running late to an appointment and you've already moved through half of the traffic being held up because of an accident and your co-worker calls you on your cell phone and says, "you might not want to take the short route, there's an accident slowing up traffic, you're better off taking the longer route because you'll end up getting there quicker", which route would you take?

I would stay on the shorter route, because it makes no sense to turn around and start all over again.

I get that you're trying to show why starting the repeal of DADT wasn't "logical" to you because repealing a different law makes more sense to you. Unfortunately, that's not the route that the people working towards making a positive change in the military chose to take. There's absolutely no reason to abandon all of the progress that has been made in order to make you happy. Or make "logic" happy, if that terminology makes you feel better.

Now, though, all you're doing is screaming and crying that you don't support the repeal of DADT simply because you don't like the way they did it. That's immature, Alma.

Tell me how logical it is to abandon progress when the change is pretty much done in an effort to change a completely different law, then go back and start on DADT again? It makes no sense. There are no rules on the order that change has to be made. There is nothing saying that if DADT is changed, the sodomy laws cannot also be changed. I don't know why you're so tenaciously holding on to this tact, as it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

No, wait. I do understand. You're doing it because, really, it's all you've got once you realized that homosexuals actually can be kicked out of the military for simply admitting that they are homosexual. When no one believed your delusions that it wasn't true, that you could say you were homosexual and it didn't matter, you decided to try a different tact, and it failed just as utterly.
#2178 Sep 19 2010 at 11:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
You add nothing to this conversation when you stray off of insults and into actually debating.


Oh hi, I'm Barkingturtle. I don't feel the need to debate with any of you. You exist solely to be the target of my ridicule. All of you. You specifically, Alma, are very much so inferior to me, not because of your hue, but because of your cognitive abilities, or lack thereof. You don't seem capable of understanding this bit of text:

Quote:
When I go to work, virtually anywhere, it's okay for me to talk about my wife. It is not okay for me to talk about fUcking my wife, in the *** or mouth or otherwise. This is not hypocritical, because relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.


And the last sentence, in particular. Like I said, I'm not here to teach you about life. I'm not going to hold your hand or push you in a stroller explaining it to you. I'm just going to denigrate you and we're all going to have a good laugh at your expense.




#2179 Sep 19 2010 at 11:11 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Quadkit wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Quadkit wrote:
They're not trying to repeal the ban of sodomy, you dolt. They're trying to repeal the ban on homosexual discrimination. I'm sorry that's so hard to understand... Jesus @#%^ing Christ you've got to be retarded or something.


Really? I guess I somehow missed that... even though I brought up the topic and only mentioned that the only thing that they care about is "repealing the ban on homosexual discrimination" and not the freedoms and rights of the military a million times. Further more, that in the military, you don't have the same rights and freedoms as any other person, so if you want to make a change such as DADT, it has to be done in a certain way to avoid further hypocrisy.

Oh, wait, I guess I didn't miss that.. I guess you're just too stupid to realize what's going on.. Ok, for a second there, I thought you might have actually had a point.
Yes, it does have to be done in a certain way. Keep the sodomy laws. No @#%^ing. Let homosexuals in the military openly. The US government does not have the "rights and freedoms" to discriminate based on sexuality, race, religion, etc. Its job is to protect rights, not hand them out as they please. Period. That includes the military. Yes, some rights in the military are restricted... but they deal with expression.


Lol, so little you know about the military...

So, let me ask you this, do you believe that the only discrimination in writing from the military is based on expression?

Quad wrote:
Being born a certain way is not expressing yourself, any more than you express yourself by being black.



Well, when I show up to work, everyone knows my skin color and yours as well. No one knows your sexuality, religious beliefs, political views, fears, etc. until actions are done. So the comparison of a physical trait to a personality trait is a complete failure.


So, you're saying that being born with certain feelings towards something,( something that you didn't know existed prior to birth), must be expressed openly as a part of your life. That telling someone not to tell people or give the perception that they are attracted to little girls is the same thing as telling you not to be white?

Interesting... I would like to know the answer to that question..
#2180 Sep 19 2010 at 11:15 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You add nothing to this conversation when you stray off of insults and into actually debating.


Oh hi, I'm Barkingturtle. I don't feel the need to debate with any of you. You exist solely to be the target of my ridicule. All of you. You specifically, Alma, are very much so inferior to me, not because of your hue, but because of your cognitive abilities, or lack thereof. You don't seem capable of understanding this bit of text:

Quote:
When I go to work, virtually anywhere, it's okay for me to talk about my wife. It is not okay for me to talk about fUcking my wife, in the *** or mouth or otherwise. This is not hypocritical, because relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.


And the last sentence, in particular. Like I said, I'm not here to teach you about life. I'm not going to hold your hand or push you in a stroller explaining it to you. I'm just going to denigrate you and we're all going to have a good laugh at your expense.






That looks nice on paper, but my response was a simple question, which you went bananas off of. Regardless if it were relevant or not, it was a simple question. You made relevance of the statement by saying it was irrelevant because you already made your point, implying that my direction of thought was already countered by your statement.

All I did was ask a simple question. So obviously, that question meant more to you than you're letting off.
#2181Almalieque, Posted: Sep 19 2010 at 11:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) WTF are you talking about? What delusions? I don't recall ever saying that a person can't get kicked out for claiming homosexuality. I actually said that heterosexuals can also get kicked out for the same thing as many attempted to avoid war, deployment, etc., but the military has gotten smarter on that. I actually read that when they try that, they still get deployed and kicked out when they return just out of spite.
#2182 Sep 19 2010 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.
This is the stupidest thing in these 44 pages.
#2183 Sep 19 2010 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
Lady Bardalicious wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.
This is the stupidest thing in these 44 pages.


Who asked you?
#2184 Sep 19 2010 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
Almalieque wrote:
When I go to work, virtually anywhere, it's okay for me to talk about my wife. It is not okay for me to talk about fUcking my wife, in the *** or mouth or otherwise. This is not hypocritical, because relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.

Gays don't want the right to talk about fucking their partners while in the military. They want for it to be ok to talk about their partners. You know. Like: "It sure is nice having no duty tonight. John's going to pick me up and we're going to try out that new steakhouse on Main St." Under DADT they can't drop the littlest clue that they might have a significant other just in case someone wants to call them on it, and kick them out. In reality many homosexuals might be dropping clues all the time, but under DADT, they are doing it under a peril that heterosexuals of any gender or race aren't under, namely, the peril of prompt discharge.

I was going to leave it there, but I just can't. HELLO, IT IS COMPLETELY MORONIC TO THINK THAT THE REPEAL OF DADT IS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS WANTING THE RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT, OR ENGAGE IN, ****-SUCKING, MUFF-MUNCHING, SODOMY, OR ANY OTHER SEXUAL ACTIVITY WHILE ON DUTY OR ON BASE. IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT, AND YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT FOR ARGUING AGAINST THAT, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE FUCK WHAT REPEALING DADT IS ABOUT. YOU ARE LETTING YOUR SQUICK FACTOR ABOUT GAY ACTIVITIES TO BLIND YOU TO WHAT THE ISSUE EVEN IS.
#2185 Sep 19 2010 at 12:31 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
Lady Bardalicious wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.
This is the stupidest thing in these 44 pages.


Who asked you?
as an expert in putting my **** into things, I felt the need to weigh in.
#2186 Sep 19 2010 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Lady Bardalicious wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.
This is the stupidest thing in these 44 pages.

Barkingturtle gets it. I get it. Everyone else in this thread except for Almalieque gets your joke. He doesn't get it. It's nice that you have deep emotional experiences with and about your boyfriend when having intercourse, but you aren't helping. You are not a helper. Smiley: disappointed

There isn't any NEED to repeal the military sodomy laws while repealing DADT, although I think that would be a cool combination. Firstly, homosexual military couples would then be equal with heterosexual military couples under the sodomy law, and it's something that everyone can hide together when they are alone with their partners. Secondly, gay men can lead a sexual life without any sodomy, and can choose to do so if necessary while in the military. Since that seems to escape Almalieque, I'll be more illustrative. Take a male-female couple where the woman, namely me, is very ill, and can't endure intercourse. Going on for 7 of our years together now, when we have sex, we have orgasms without any intercourse happening. Use your imagination. Gay male sex =/= sodomy. Sodomy is a sexual option open to any couple. It is a traditional, historical method of birth control for heterosexual couples, and to preserve a woman's "virginity". It's a niche sexual activity that many heteros have enjoyed since the year dot.

I'm not saying that everyone was and is running around doing it, or liking it, or finding it anything but painful or disgusting. But it's more than just a male homosexual thing, and it is well less than the sum of male homosexual sex together.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 2:44pm by Aripyanfar
#2187 Sep 19 2010 at 12:38 PM Rating: Good
Lady Bardalicious wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
Lady Bardalicious wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.
This is the stupidest thing in these 44 pages.


Who asked you?
as an expert in putting my **** into things, I felt the need to weigh in.


I know, I was making a DADT joke. I don't even know why I pretend to care about your rights, you filthy ****-******


And Ari, fix your fUcking quote.
#2188Almalieque, Posted: Sep 19 2010 at 12:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ahhhh... now I get it. Yes that is quite moronic. I'm sorry if you believed that I was even arguing that point to begin with. I am glad that I figured out WTF you people were talking about though.
#2189 Sep 19 2010 at 12:49 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:

And Ari, fix your fUcking quote.

?

Also, why are all your posts showing up as a one line header, that doesn't have any of your post content in it, but can be expanded out with a click to show the content, and that the post is at your usual "good" rating?
#2190 Sep 19 2010 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
Aripyanfar wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:

And Ari, fix your fUcking quote.

?


You attributed my words to the homophobic ape. It made me feel icky.

Quote:
Also, why are all your posts showing up as a one line header, that doesn't have any of your post content in it, but can be expanded out with a click to show the content, and that the post is at your usual "good" rating?


Didn't realize that was happening, but I would guess the Man just doesn't like what I have to say.
#2191 Sep 19 2010 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Saying "It sure is nice having no duty tonight. John's going to pick meup and we're going to try out htat new steakhouse on Main st." isn't gay. Heterosexuals say stuff like that all the time, so how can you assume that person A is gay or not?


Yes, going out for dinner as a couple one night isn't going to twinge anyone's gaydar. But spending the holidays at each other's extended families, mentioning John while off duty on a regular basis, more often than other friends are mentioned, living with one another, making weekly shopping trips together, doing house and yard work together, owning a car together, and holding each other's hands off base might, just might tip fellow personnel off, while being reasonable public behaviour.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 2:58pm by Aripyanfar
#2192 Sep 19 2010 at 1:01 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:

And Ari, fix your fUcking quote.

?


You attributed my words to the homophobic ape. It made me feel icky.

Sorry dude.

And did Angsty-Coder make some code just for you, and your acolytes? Have I missed a good troll recently? I really haven't been ***** with following this whole thread. I just skim occasionally. It truly is for the terminally bored, or the mischievous.

Almalieque, don't think that not reading all your posts in this thread disqualifies me from arguing against you. I've argued against what you yourself have said in a whole post, which stands alone as an argument made. The context of your posts does not change the content of them. Not unless you make a fragmentary post, which I haven't come across.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 3:11pm by Aripyanfar
#2193 Sep 19 2010 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
Aripyanfar wrote:


And did Angsty-Coder make some code just for you, and your acolytes?


I bet it's the report button. I'm pretty offensive.
#2194 Sep 19 2010 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
Ari, do you mean BT's posts are showing up like they're sub-default and you have to click the "expand" button to read them? None of his posts are showing up like that for me.

I wonder if your filter is messed up?
#2195 Sep 19 2010 at 1:13 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Saying "It sure is nice having no duty tonight. John's going to pick meup and we're going to try out htat new steakhouse on Main st." isn't gay. Heterosexuals say stuff like that all the time, so how can you assume that person A is gay or not?


Yes, going out for dinner as a couple one night isn't going to twinge anyone's gaydar. But spending the holidays at each other's extended families, mentioning John while off duty on a regular basis, more often than other friends are mentioned, living with one another, making weekly shopping trips together, doing house and yard work together, owning a car together, and holding each other's hands off base might, just might tip fellow personnel off, while being reasonable public behaviour.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 2:58pm by Aripyanfar


Lol, you just don't realize the lifestyle of the military.... In your attempt to try to be as "gay" as possible, I'm thinking of a couple of straight people that I know that fit most of that except of the "holding hands part" and extended family part, but no I never get that far into anyone's business to even know that they're gone let alone know who they are actually seeing.

You know, that's kinda the point of DADT, no matter how questionable your behavior is, unless you actually do something like hold hands, say something or make a video, they can't question you nor do you have to answer.
#2196 Sep 19 2010 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Ari, do you mean BT's posts are showing up like they're sub-default and you have to click the "expand" button to read them? None of his posts are showing up like that for me.

I wonder if your filter is messed up?

Yes, yes they are. Yes I do. It's only BT's posts. I'll go check my filter.

My filter is set as usual. Apparently my account has decided to be a wilting flower, and yours hasn't. I wonder whose account else is defending itself against the Big Bad Turtle.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 3:17pm by Aripyanfar
#2197 Sep 19 2010 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
Aripyanfar wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Ari, do you mean BT's posts are showing up like they're sub-default and you have to click the "expand" button to read them? None of his posts are showing up like that for me.

I wonder if your filter is messed up?

Yes, yes they are. Yes I do. It's only BT's posts. I'll go check my filter.


That's weird. Smiley: lol Your computer is filtering BT.
#2198 Sep 19 2010 at 1:16 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Quote:
Almalieque, don't think that not reading all your posts in this thread disqualifies me from arguing against you. I've argued against what you yourself have said in a whole post, which stands alone as an argument made. The context of your posts does not change the content of them. Not unless you make a fragmentary post, which I haven't come across.


I don't think I've made fragmentary posts, but I've made my points on concepts in other posts that are being constantly addressed as if I didn't say anything all.
#2199 Sep 19 2010 at 1:32 PM Rating: Decent
-REDACTED-
Scholar
***
1,150 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Ari, do you mean BT's posts are showing up like they're sub-default and you have to click the "expand" button to read them? None of his posts are showing up like that for me.

I wonder if your filter is messed up?

Yes, yes they are. Yes I do. It's only BT's posts. I'll go check my filter.

My filter is set as usual. Apparently my account has decided to be a wilting flower, and yours hasn't. I wonder whose account else is defending itself against the Big Bad Turtle.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 3:17pm by Aripyanfar


Do you have him on ignore? I do, and that's how his posts show up to me.
#2200 Sep 19 2010 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
Well that's neat.
#2201Almalieque, Posted: Sep 19 2010 at 1:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This thread is actually quite funny, because on both topics SSM (which for some reason I keep thinking is another thread) and DADT, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your intentions, just the avenue of approach.
This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 141 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (141)