Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[TeletubbyPrince]

TTP id invite you to compare logical fallacies and to count connotative words by comparison between the posts he makes and the posts hes responding to, if youd like to compare the logic. It is not really a valid statement to claim that an opinion cannot be more logical than another or that an opinion in and of itself is devoid of logic. In a similar vein, calling something liberal propaganda doesnt not make it such.

Its fairly clear on a quick scan that he is not engaging in the same fallacious style the other people in the thread are.

Duly noted, but having a relatively good argument doesn't mean much when the competition sucks this much. My 'liberal propoganda' comment was not meant to be taken literally; it was merely meant to convey my point in a light-hearted manner.

Anyways, this argument is way too serious. Companies don't have to tolerate flamboyantly gay behaviour, so the military shouldn't have to either. You can make the argument that not all gays are flamboyant, however you have to ask yourself how their sexuality would even come into question under those circumstances. It's better to have a broad policy that works, than to leave the judgement of "who's overly flamboyant" in the hands of potentially biased iindividuals.

[Titanic]

Ive read primarily what woodruff has posted and the some of the initial stuff and its quite clear he is flooding the thread with logic and common sense.

More like opinions and liberal propoganda.

A gay guy would cause discomfort for his comrades, end of story.

Oh. Somebody should tell the actual members of the military here (like woodruff) that that's the case, they obviously aren't aware.

Yes, lets gather anecdotal evidence from one guy and use it to represent the entire US military's view, that is such a good idea you should win awards omg

Ok then, how about this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_as ... _personnel

and this (from the same page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_as ... el_opinion

"72% of respondents who had experience with gays or lesbians in their unit said that the presence of gay or lesbian unit members had either no impact or a positive impact on their personal morale, while 67% said as much for overall unit morale."

"73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel."

[Timminz]

I would like to clarify something for a few of our less worldly members here. The flamboyant ones tend not to be the ones joining the military. Please stop using that particular stereotype as a base for your ridiculous arguments.

[TeletubbyPrince]

Ok then, how about this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_as ... _personnel

and this (from the same page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_as ... el_opinion

"72% of respondents who had experience with gays or lesbians in their unit said that the presence of gay or lesbian unit members had either no impact or a positive impact on their personal morale, while 67% said as much for overall unit morale."

"73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel."

So 1 out of every 5 soldiers are screwed? 1 out of every 10 people are gay, so you'd essentially be screwing two people for every one person you appease.

I would like to clarify something for a few of our less worldly members here. The flamboyant ones tend not to be the ones joining the military. Please stop using that particular stereotype as a base for your ridiculous arguments.

Anecdotal evidence. This is the problem with the debate; the gay side can only bring up flimsy arguments like this, while the non-gay side can actually support themselves with logic.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I would like to clarify something for a few of our less worldly members here. The flamboyant ones tend not to be the ones joining the military. Please stop using that particular stereotype as a base for your ridiculous arguments.

Anecdotal evidence. This is the problem with the debate; the gay side can only bring up flimsy arguments like this, while the non-gay side can actually support themselves with logic.

hey how much do you weigh, 250 pounds? 300?

350?

[Timminz]

I would like to clarify something for a few of our less worldly members here. The flamboyant ones tend not to be the ones joining the military. Please stop using that particular stereotype as a base for your ridiculous arguments.

Anecdotal evidence. This is the problem with the debate; the gay side can only bring up flimsy arguments like this, while the non-gay side can actually support themselves with logic.

I'll take that as your admission to having no real-world experience with gay people, other than possibly seeing a guy once who you "could totally tell was a fag".

[TeletubbyPrince]

I would like to clarify something for a few of our less worldly members here. The flamboyant ones tend not to be the ones joining the military. Please stop using that particular stereotype as a base for your ridiculous arguments.

Anecdotal evidence. This is the problem with the debate; the gay side can only bring up flimsy arguments like this, while the non-gay side can actually support themselves with logic.

hey how much do you weigh, 250 pounds? 300?

350?

6'2 and I weighed 180 last time I checked (which was a very long time ago). If you're trying to make a personal attack, you'll find that you're making it in an entirely wrong way, as I am incredibly handsome in appearance. That combined with my wit and sass makes me very savvy with the ladies (no guys for me)

I'll take that as your admission to having no real-world experience with gay people, other than possibly seeing a guy once who you "could totally tell was a fag".

Both an ad hominem AND a strawman argument. I am impressed.

[Timminz]

I'll take that as your admission to having no real-world experience with gay people, other than possibly seeing a guy once who you "could totally tell was a fag".

Both an ad hominem AND a strawman argument. I am impressed.

You have shown absolutely no knowledge of anything being discussed in this thread. Why should anyone assume you have any clue as to what you're talking about?

[Snorri1234]

I would like to clarify something for a few of our less worldly members here. The flamboyant ones tend not to be the ones joining the military. Please stop using that particular stereotype as a base for your ridiculous arguments.

Anecdotal evidence. This is the problem with the debate; the gay side can only bring up flimsy arguments like this, while the non-gay side can actually support themselves with logic.

How is that anecdotal evidence?

[thegreekdog]

I would like to clarify something for a few of our less worldly members here. The flamboyant ones tend not to be the ones joining the military. Please stop using that particular stereotype as a base for your ridiculous arguments.

Anecdotal evidence. This is the problem with the debate; the gay side can only bring up flimsy arguments like this, while the non-gay side can actually support themselves with logic.

hey how much do you weigh, 250 pounds? 300?

350?

6'2 and I weighed 180 last time I checked (which was a very long time ago). If you're trying to make a personal attack, you'll find that you're making it in an entirely wrong way, as I am incredibly handsome in appearance. That combined with my wit and sass makes me very savvy with the ladies (no guys for me)

I'll take that as your admission to having no real-world experience with gay people, other than possibly seeing a guy once who you "could totally tell was a fag".

Both an ad hominem AND a strawman argument. I am impressed.

Tubster, I think this is appropriate in this thread as well...

Go f*ck yourself

[muy_thaiguy]

Though I find it funny that some random Canadian teenager is saying how people in the US armed forces would feel uncomfortable with gays and lesbians serving in the services openly, despite proofs against his arguments. Though, this does lead me to ask, Canadians, do gays and lesbians serve openly in the Canadian military forces?

[Juan_Bottom]

Go f*ck yourself

This, this right here? That doesn't advance the issue. That's not an argument. It's intellectually bankrupt to say this. I really hate when people marginalize someone like this. Now, you may say, "but thegreekdog, I don't want to lend credence to this ridiculous argument." And that's fair, but it's not going to change minds and it makes you look like a stuttering jackass who can't actually argue or articulate why homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. If I were arguing with these people, I'd say, "our Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, grants certain rights to people, regardles of their choice in sexual partners." I wouldn't say, "Just shut up you homophobe." Because, really, that makes you no better than a homophobe. You're a homophobephobe.

[TeletubbyPrince]

Though I find it funny that some random Canadian teenager is saying how people in the US armed forces would feel uncomfortable with gays and lesbians serving in the services openly, despite proofs against his arguments. Though, this does lead me to ask, Canadians, do gays and lesbians serve openly in the Canadian military forces?

I find it funny that the only proofs against my argument are anecdotal accounts from ANOTHER Canadian.

[Timminz]

Though I find it funny that some random Canadian teenager is saying how people in the US armed forces would feel uncomfortable with gays and lesbians serving in the services openly, despite proofs against his arguments. Though, this does lead me to ask, Canadians, do gays and lesbians serve openly in the Canadian military forces?

I find it funny that the only proofs against my argument are anecdotal accounts from ANOTHER Canadian.

Are you suggesting that I am the only person to point out the massive flaws in your reasoning? You still haven't answered snorri's question about how, exactly, what I wrote could be considered anecdotal.

[thegreekdog]

Go f*ck yourself

This, this right here? That doesn't advance the issue. That's not an argument. It's intellectually bankrupt to say this. I really hate when people marginalize someone like this. Now, you may say, "but thegreekdog, I don't want to lend credence to this ridiculous argument." And that's fair, but it's not going to change minds and it makes you look like a stuttering jackass who can't actually argue or articulate why homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. If I were arguing with these people, I'd say, "our Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, grants certain rights to people, regardles of their choice in sexual partners." I wouldn't say, "Just shut up you homophobe." Because, really, that makes you no better than a homophobe. You're a homophobephobe.

HA... I've been hoisted by my own pitard.

[Frigidus]

Though I find it funny that some random Canadian teenager is saying how people in the US armed forces would feel uncomfortable with gays and lesbians serving in the services openly, despite proofs against his arguments. Though, this does lead me to ask, Canadians, do gays and lesbians serve openly in the Canadian military forces?

I find it funny that the only proofs against my argument are anecdotal accounts from ANOTHER Canadian.

Are you suggesting that I am the only person to point out the massive flaws in your reasoning? You still haven't answered snorri's question about how, exactly, what I wrote could be considered anecdotal.

Not to mention that being flamboyantly gay in the military is not what we're defending. You don't see anybody in the military acting lusting around after women because they are expected to behave professionally.

I mean, what do you mean by flamboyant Teletubby? I honestly don't know what to picture.

[Burrito]

Greek, you usually make good points and while I also usually don't agree with you I can see that you start from some rational point.

But you can't seriously argue that we need to make good and reasonable points to people who post this:

What really makes a black man different from a white one? Skin tone? Definitely. Diction? Perhaps for some. Shared cultural past? Maybe. Living in a ghetto? Not every black family is poor. Jail time? That is an arguable point, although that me be more because of situation over predisposition. The only real difference here is that their skin is a different color, their hair grows differently, they sometimes talk and dress funny. There is nothing there to preclude them from working/living in close proximity with other races, or even producing a family with other races.

Now gay men on the other hand are wildly varying. The come from all walks of life, from all over the country, all leading very different lives. The only thing that ties them together is their wish to have sexual intercourse with other. Now this fundamental aspect is what separates them from normal men. This is the problem that many have with them solely because of this. They may be great people in other ways, or they may be terrible ones. But they do something that many view as immoral, unnatural, or just plain wrong. Because of this, a majority of men will at least dislike/mistrust gay men, based on this one fundamental aspect of their existence. There is nothing to get over, no stereotypes to overcome, no acceptance for this. The difference here is not a purely aesthetic one, or a perceived one. They are different on a level similar to how extreme liberals and conservatives are different. Sure, they are both human beings, but their beliefs are polar opposites, precluding any real dialogue between the two. The same is true for black integration and gay integration. Sure, they have both been discriminated against, but for entirely different reasons.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't support government saying whether or not you can have sex with whoever you want, as long as your partner(s) are consenting. I think that they are to involved with trying to make everyone treat everyone equally, which really just fosters more hate. If you want to get screwed from behind, go ahead. I won't like it, I will look down on you with disgust, but I won't try to get the government involved in making you stop. I disagree with what you are doing, but I accept that as long as no one gets hurt, then I have no right to stop you. That said, I oppose gays integration into the military for the same reasons that I previously stated. They would not get integrate smoothly with the rest of the men in the service because of this fundamental aspect of their differences with normal human society. there would be nothing to get over, no perceptions to change. They are simply different on a way no straight man can relate to.

I still haven't read this. I dismissed this entire thread because it's weird and disturbing.

Hey snorri, mind telling me exactly what is wrong with this instead of just blowing it off? You are in essence saying that you don't like what I'm saying, so you are ignoring it.

[thegreekdog]

Greek, you usually make good points and while I also usually don't agree with you I can see that you start from some rational point.

But you can't seriously argue that we need to make good and reasonable points to people who post this:

What really makes a black man different from a white one? Skin tone? Definitely. Diction? Perhaps for some. Shared cultural past? Maybe. Living in a ghetto? Not every black family is poor. Jail time? That is an arguable point, although that me be more because of situation over predisposition. The only real difference here is that their skin is a different color, their hair grows differently, they sometimes talk and dress funny. There is nothing there to preclude them from working/living in close proximity with other races, or even producing a family with other races.

Now gay men on the other hand are wildly varying. The come from all walks of life, from all over the country, all leading very different lives. The only thing that ties them together is their wish to have sexual intercourse with other. Now this fundamental aspect is what separates them from normal men. This is the problem that many have with them solely because of this. They may be great people in other ways, or they may be terrible ones. But they do something that many view as immoral, unnatural, or just plain wrong. Because of this, a majority of men will at least dislike/mistrust gay men, based on this one fundamental aspect of their existence. There is nothing to get over, no stereotypes to overcome, no acceptance for this. The difference here is not a purely aesthetic one, or a perceived one. They are different on a level similar to how extreme liberals and conservatives are different. Sure, they are both human beings, but their beliefs are polar opposites, precluding any real dialogue between the two. The same is true for black integration and gay integration. Sure, they have both been discriminated against, but for entirely different reasons.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't support government saying whether or not you can have sex with whoever you want, as long as your partner(s) are consenting. I think that they are to involved with trying to make everyone treat everyone equally, which really just fosters more hate. If you want to get screwed from behind, go ahead. I won't like it, I will look down on you with disgust, but I won't try to get the government involved in making you stop. I disagree with what you are doing, but I accept that as long as no one gets hurt, then I have no right to stop you. That said, I oppose gays integration into the military for the same reasons that I previously stated. They would not get integrate smoothly with the rest of the men in the service because of this fundamental aspect of their differences with normal human society. there would be nothing to get over, no perceptions to change. They are simply different on a way no straight man can relate to.

I still haven't read this. I dismissed this entire thread because it's weird and disturbing.

Hey snorri, mind telling me exactly what is wrong with this instead of just blowing it off? You are in essence saying that you don't like what I'm saying, so you are ignoring it.

Technically Burrito, that was me. And I'm not arguing with you guys.

[TeletubbyPrince]

I mean, what do you mean by flamboyant Teletubby? I honestly don't know what to picture.

GreekDog illustrates my point perfectly.

You still haven't answered snorri's question about how, exactly, what I wrote could be considered anecdotal.

You'd save me the trouble if you'd look in a dictionary...

[thegreekdog]

I mean, what do you mean by flamboyant Teletubby? I honestly don't know what to picture.

GreekDog illustrates my point perfectly.

I don't think Frigidus knows what I look like. Therefore, I'm not a valid point of reference.

Additionally... "oh noes, he called me flamboyant, whatever shall i do?!"

Further....

Go f*ck yourself. Thanks.

[Burrito]

I meant the part where Snorri said-

But you can't seriously argue that we need to make good and reasonable points to people who post this:

[Timminz]

You still haven't answered snorri's question about how, exactly, what I wrote could be considered anecdotal.

You'd save me the trouble if you'd look in a dictionary...

And you would save yourself future embarrassment by doing the same.

I'm not looking for a definition. You obviously would be the wrong person to ask, if I were. I was simply wondering where you were seeing an anecdote, of any sort, in my earlier post.

[TeletubbyPrince]

You still haven't answered snorri's question about how, exactly, what I wrote could be considered anecdotal.

You'd save me the trouble if you'd look in a dictionary...

And you would save yourself future embarrassment by doing the same.

I'm not looking for a definition. You obviously would be the wrong person to ask, if I were. I was simply wondering where you were seeing an anecdote, of any sort, in my earlier post.

Strawman argument: I never said you made an anecdote I said you were using anecdotal evidence

[Snorri1234]

Hey snorri, mind telling me exactly what is wrong with this instead of just blowing it off? You are in essence saying that you don't like what I'm saying, so you are ignoring it.

No I am actually saying that your post is so mindboggingly backwards in it's ideas about others that I simply see no point in responding to it. Your thoughts about homosexuality and race are simply retarded.

[Burrito]

Hey snorri, mind telling me exactly what is wrong with this instead of just blowing it off? You are in essence saying that you don't like what I'm saying, so you are ignoring it.

No I am actually saying that your post is so mindboggingly backwards in it's ideas about others that I simply see no point in responding to it. Your thoughts about homosexuality and race are simply retarded.

Right, so you are ignoring my post because you don't like what it says. That makes you a douche. I don't like much that you say, yet I still argue with you about it. Not everyone in the world will agree with you, and if you start/join a discussion about it, then say that the other viewpoint is "simply retarded" makes you a douchebag.