Sir Xsarus wrote:
I have no idea, because x doesn't mean anything. Just use real examples. You stated that homosexuals and heterosexuals would be unequally treated if DADT were repealed. I asked what what the unequal treatment would be. It's pretty simple, and using x's just obfuscates the discussion.
I tried using real examples and you didn't understand, so I'm breaking it down to the variable form, the foundation of the concept, and am starting from there. That isn't trying to obfuscate the discussion, but to get an answer on the concept. You changing my "x" to "y" is you trying to "obfuscate the discussion".
Given the statement
"If an organization creates a rule banning activity "x", but allows people to openly admit to doing activity "x" with no repercussions, while chastising others for activity "x", that's not hypocritical? o.o?" You responded with
Using your x scenario, it can be hypocritical, but it might not be. It depends on what x is. If X is say sitting at the front of the bus when it's empty, but seniors and people with a disability can ignore x, then it is not hypocritical. You are differentiating an inequality with no justification vs an inequality with a justification, in other words, equality from fairness. You never denied the simple concept of equality, only said it might not be hypocritical if the action is justified. Ok, that is true, so my question is, since you want to go down that route, regardless of the justification, are both parties treated equally, i.e. the exact same?
Eske wrote:
How many times do I have to say that that isn't my argument against DADT before you get it through your thick skull? I was arguing against your belief that "it would be hypocritical to remove DADT without also removing the sodomy law."
Did you read my last post to you? You confused two different arguments, combining them together and created an argument that didn't exist. All of your responses to my hypocrisy of allowing both DADT and Sodomy was under the impression that they were the same or couldn't do one without the other. That was false.
My argument to you was that you repeatedly kept saying that there is nothing comparable to being discharged for homosexuality. So, I'm not sure why you're so stuck on a specific example of sodomy when I've been arguing on concept.
You say that isn't your argument against DADT, but for how it is different from all of the other "offenses" that can get you discharged. Ok, you do realize that's the same thing right? It may not be your actual argument that you would pursue against DADT, but it is definitely an argument against it.
Eske wrote:
Yeah, super. And I also said that "image" isn't a good enough reason to justify DADT already. What image? A manly image? An image of dudes who don't have sex with other dudes? Why is that a legitimate reason to not allow gays to openly serve? What is the benefit? What are the consequences of removing DADT?
No, I've already said also that it isn't a physical image, it's the image of hypocrisy. The same hypocrisy that I've been talking about for the last x pages. Just like with the argument you created to debunk, you also created potential false images to debunk.
Eske wrote:
I'll say it again: if the physical fitness examples are unjust, then they should be changed as well. If you're against them, and you're arguing that "DADT should stay because even though it's unjust, other things are unjust too." then you're dead in the water.
No.. Hopefully this will get to you now.
My argument to you is that there are other "offenses" that are comparable to homosexuality, so simply complaining that it happens to homosexuals has no value. My argument for keeping DADT was simply based on hypocrisy. After hearing the 4 star, he does have potentially a better point. Yet again, you confused two ideas.
Eske wrote:
Similar in what way? There are degrees of similarity. Homosexuality and physical size have some similar aspects, in that they are both inherent qualities. There are also many differences between the two.
It's because of those differences that you can't use one as precedent for the other. Human sexuality is a very separate issue from weight. Every case needs to be analyzed for it's unique aspects as well.
I mean "similar" as in the words you mentioned why homosexuality was different: personal trait; and able to be discharged without actually doing anything else. Those were the two differences that you used to argue how it was different. So, I'm asking you, based off what you argued earlier, will you now agree that homosexuality is not different?
Belkira wrote:
Maybe that's because we're talking about DADT, and that's the story that's getting more coverage?
You mean SSM right? Topics don't change within threads... I didn't bring up DADT just to get a few extra pages in the thread, that's impossible. Once people start talking about a topic, they stay on it. Especially over a story that happened weeks before any discussion on the thread. It was the mass coverage that brought the topic to the thread!
Belkira wrote:
Despise you? no, because being a ***** is a choice. Who you fall in love with is not. It certainly won't gain you any respect, though.
What if the person claims that they were born that way with the need to have sex with multiple people? Is it still a choice? Are you suggesting that these people should go against their natural feelings and hide them to fit in? Who defines love? What if they claim that they are in love with these people, who are you to say that they don't?
Eske wrote:
He's just desperately grasping at straws. Instead of forming rational arguments, he's degenerated to the point of just making vague accusations of hypocrisy at everybody.
Your lack of understanding of how the military works does not equate to being vague.
Belkira wrote:
It's almost like he's using emotion instead of logic...
This is probably the most ironic thing I've ever read on this forum.
Sweetums wrote:
You must be under the false impression that anyone cares
Of course not, if they did, they would understand the hypocrisy issue by now.
Quad wrote:
Keep him going! It's almost 50 pages!
Keep
me going? lol, I don't find it a coincidence that when I decide not to post anything before I went to sleep that I only woke up with one post, being you.
Since you want to talk, why don't you finally answer the question below.
Almalieque wrote:
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?
That's funny. That really was what I meant. I honestly thought you knew that. I don't think anyone else was confused by it. You were asking me if I would "despise you" if you were disgusted by someone acting like a *****. My entire comment was about how I would regard you making a judgement on other people. I didn't offer you my opinion on people who sleep with multiple people. If you want it, I'll give it to you. It's no skin off my nose. 