His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That was a lot of words to avoid just asking the question. Go go embarrassed obfuscation! ![Smiley: laugh](//zam.zamimg.com/i/smilies/laugh.gif)
![Smiley: laugh](http://zam.zamimg.com/i/smilies/laugh.gif)
I already explained it directly in reference to DADT, let me quote it again for you. If you don't understand that and don't want a further explanation, then politely STFU
Almalieque on Page 6 wrote:
Except that isn't the counterpart. The reasons why heterosexual men dont' want to shower with homosexual men ARE THE SAME reasons why heterosexual women don't want to shower with heterosexual men.
It's the concept not the details. If you accept one argument based on feelings x,y and z, then you must also accept the other argument based on feelings x,y and z. Like I keep saying in every SSM argument, if you argue for all, then you must accept all. Else, you must make an exclusive argument
It's the concept not the details. If you accept one argument based on feelings x,y and z, then you must also accept the other argument based on feelings x,y and z. Like I keep saying in every SSM argument, if you argue for all, then you must accept all. Else, you must make an exclusive argument
Only you have, once again, completely failed to realize that this isn't the issue at all. Homosexual men (and women) have already been showering with the straight people for quite some time so apparently nobody really minds that.
Really, the only difference is that now the homosexual people don't have to hide that fact anymore. It doesn't change anything about those people, about their colleagues and it shouldn't change the way they are thought of.
Sooo, what's the problem again?
I already answered that as well. I can find the quote to that later if I have time. I believe it was a response to RDD. The fact that homosexuals are currently serving in the military HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MY ARGUMENT. Read my post on page 6 and tell me where it says otherwise.
Jophiel wrote:
Really? THAT was your argument? The thing that was discredited back on page 6 as well?
Well, hell, had you just asked "If a child is already eating a ham sandwich and then says it'd be unfair to let him eat that if he's not also being force-fed a turkey sandwich as well because he has to be held down with every conceivable sandwich shoved down his gullet or else he can't have any food ever again, should the mother run to the store now or quietly call DCFS and save them the hassle of an investigation?" then I might have understood what you meant. Because, as I suspected, your "comparison" didn't work at all.
Well, hell, had you just asked "If a child is already eating a ham sandwich and then says it'd be unfair to let him eat that if he's not also being force-fed a turkey sandwich as well because he has to be held down with every conceivable sandwich shoved down his gullet or else he can't have any food ever again, should the mother run to the store now or quietly call DCFS and save them the hassle of an investigation?" then I might have understood what you meant. Because, as I suspected, your "comparison" didn't work at all.
Responding to the post isn't the same as discrediting it. As I suspected, you completely fail because your "comparison" had nothing to do with my statement. You once again, made up some illogical crap, projected unto me as if it were my argument and then argued against it as opposed to just answering the question. You must be that scared huh?! Afraid of putting your foot in your mouth that you would rather avoid answering the question by projecting a stupid argument.
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Well if you don't think it will adversely affect the military shut the fuck up!
What are you talking about? Your proposition was the military collapsing, which I never implied.
Well you think less people will join because of this right? Which leads to the military collapsing. If you don't think this, why are you making such a big fucking deal about it?
Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 5:49am by Nilatai
I don't think that and my reason on why it's a big deal is in my ginormous post on page 5.
TL;DR, be more succinct.
Well, then I guess you just wont know then... too sad
![Smiley: frown](http://zam.zamimg.com/i/smilies/frown.gif)