Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lady Gaga

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 5:49:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Fighting to repeat DADT on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com...

She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :)
President of DDO
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 5:58:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 5:49:10 PM, theLwerd wrote:
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve

I just heard a clip of her speech on a conservative talk radio show and the guy was just mocking it. He's like, yeah, let's send home all the normal people and keep the gays.

I honestly think she makes a good point. Instead of punishing the victim, punish the discriminator.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :

Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 10:49:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 5:52:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what's the big deal about the Senate voting against the repeal? It's not like they have the power to do it.
How not?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 10:55:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sadly, in my AP American Government class my teacher showed us this. Social media FTW? <sigh> I don't think so. I wonder who masterminded this ploy...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 11:13:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 5:52:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what's the big deal about the Senate voting against the repeal? It's not like they have the power to do it.

What do you mean? The Senate has a defense bill that includes a conditional repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell law. Had the Dems gotten 60 votes, the policy would have been repealed.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 11:14:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 5:58:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I just heard a clip of her speech on a conservative talk radio show and the guy was just mocking it. He's like, yeah, let's send home all the normal people and keep the gays.

I wouldn't be upset if he choked and died tonight. I'm not being sarcastic either. The world doesn't need more people like that guy.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2010 11:15:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.

Yes, but the military breeds a lot of that ideology into them when they get there.
President of DDO
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 5:31:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 11:15:37 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/21/2010 10:51:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I <3 Gaga

Me too! :)

Me too now. <lmfao her wanting that is prolly why my dad hates her with a passion>

I really have no f-ing clue how it was legal in the first place. I honestly thought gays had been accepted in the army for years. Why the f*ck is this country so slow to evolve, Canada seems to have things right, to my knowlage gay marriage and pot are legal there.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 11:02:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 11:15:37 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/21/2010 10:51:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I <3 Gaga

Me too! :)

Eww.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :

Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.

This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 11:06:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :

Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.

This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?

I would say that if they ya know start attacking or discriminating against their gay peers it should be enough to get them out.
Obviously don't kick anyone out that hasn't done anything wrong.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 11:10:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 11:06:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :

Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.

This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?

I would say that if they ya know start attacking or discriminating against their gay peers it should be enough to get them out.
Obviously don't kick anyone out that hasn't done anything wrong.

Then you're going to be kicking out hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers., A reason for DADT is pressure from the military itself, they are fully aware of the negative effects of putting gays in the military.

Besides, things like this are silly,. If they perform hazing on a gay without knowing of their sexual orientation a handful of soldiers will be sent away for a hate crime. Which would be pretty ridiculous. Armies are a place where fights, rows, etc. can break out, and doing so and getting dismissed because one of them happened to be gay would be ludicrous.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 11:14:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?

Do you seriously not get it?

Right now, DADT is legal because they think certain soldiers would have a problem serving with gay people. If this hypothetical (awesome) law were implemented, it would be holding soldiers to the SAME STANDARDS EVERY OTHER WORKING CITIZEN IS HELD TO and that is to get over your bigotry and assimilate with those who don't pose any realistic threat to you or your job. The way they'd "find out who the homophobes are" would be to simply kick out the ones who complain that they can't properly work alongside a gay person because, obviously, their homophobia is dehabilitating and makes them unqualified to do the job.

Panda PLEASE debate me on whether or not to repeal DADT and let me obliterate you if you really feel this way.
President of DDO
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 11:15:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 11:10:01 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:06:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :

Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.

This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?

I would say that if they ya know start attacking or discriminating against their gay peers it should be enough to get them out.
Obviously don't kick anyone out that hasn't done anything wrong.

Then you're going to be kicking out hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers., A reason for DADT is pressure from the military itself, they are fully aware of the negative effects of putting gays in the military.


What?

Besides, things like this are silly,. If they perform hazing on a gay without knowing of their sexual orientation a handful of soldiers will be sent away for a hate crime. Which would be pretty ridiculous. Armies are a place where fights, rows, etc. can break out, and doing so and getting dismissed because one of them happened to be gay would be ludicrous.

No, I mean that if your just avoiding someone thats gay because they are gay. If you generally avoid people its not a big deal.
I'd send them home if they were acting that way towards anyone.

I don't see how sexual orientation should affect people at all. I don't believe in treating people any better or worse because of the genetalia they prefer.

Its pretty easy to tell why people are weary of others, and attacking someone just for geing gay is not a good reason. Then again I'm against all attacks really. Then again I'm against war in general, so under my system there wouldn't be a need for any of this regulation :p
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 11:18:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 11:10:01 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Then you're going to be kicking out hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers.

HAHAHA.

So?

First of all, you have no idea how many people are really homophobic or how many just have to pretend they are. Find me ONE statistic that says thousands of soldiers would quit. There are already gays serving in the military - just not openly - and whether or not they SAY they like d!ck has absolutely NO BEARING on whether or not they do, so this is entirely irrelevant. There is NO reason why it makes a difference whether or not the guy shooting the same people you are likes sucking c0ck or not. This is obvious.

Plus, people who join the military likely do so for money and job security. This would still be there whether gays can serve openly or not. They wouldn't give this up on the OFF CHANCE that 1 out of every 1,000 soldiers MIGHT think they are decent looking.

A reason for DADT is pressure from the military itself, they are fully aware of the negative effects of putting gays in the military.

So I'm assuming you'll take me up on my offer to debate me. You said you wanted to debate me - why not this? Clearly I feel very strongly about it and completely opposite of you.

Besides, things like this are silly,. If they perform hazing on a gay without knowing of their sexual orientation a handful of soldiers will be sent away for a hate crime.

Need proof Panda doesn't know much about the military or this policy? Here it is :)
President of DDO
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 11:19:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 11:15:40 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:10:01 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:06:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :

Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.

This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?

I would say that if they ya know start attacking or discriminating against their gay peers it should be enough to get them out.
Obviously don't kick anyone out that hasn't done anything wrong.

Then you're going to be kicking out hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers., A reason for DADT is pressure from the military itself, they are fully aware of the negative effects of putting gays in the military.


What?

Rape.


Besides, things like this are silly,. If they perform hazing on a gay without knowing of their sexual orientation a handful of soldiers will be sent away for a hate crime. Which would be pretty ridiculous. Armies are a place where fights, rows, etc. can break out, and doing so and getting dismissed because one of them happened to be gay would be ludicrous.

No, I mean that if your just avoiding someone thats gay because they are gay. If you generally avoid people its not a big deal.
I'd send them home if they were acting that way towards anyone.

And how do you prove that it's due to sexual orientation and not due to other factors?


I don't see how sexual orientation should affect people at all. I don't believe in treating people any better or worse because of the genetalia they prefer.


That's what you think. Step outside yourself and look at the real world.

Its pretty easy to tell why people are weary of others, and attacking someone just for geing gay is not a good reason. Then again I'm against all attacks really. Then again I'm against war in general, so under my system there wouldn't be a need for any of this regulation :p

Again, outside your own little mind, have a look at the present situation and the real world. Hazing occurs en masse.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 11:24:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 11:19:55 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:15:40 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:10:01 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:06:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :

Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.

This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?

I would say that if they ya know start attacking or discriminating against their gay peers it should be enough to get them out.
Obviously don't kick anyone out that hasn't done anything wrong.

Then you're going to be kicking out hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers., A reason for DADT is pressure from the military itself, they are fully aware of the negative effects of putting gays in the military.


What?

Rape.


LMFAO!!! Yeah I like girls so if I'm placed around a bunch of them I'm gunna rape them? L is a huge rapist? I mean come one, seriously.


Besides, things like this are silly,. If they perform hazing on a gay without knowing of their sexual orientation a handful of soldiers will be sent away for a hate crime. Which would be pretty ridiculous. Armies are a place where fights, rows, etc. can break out, and doing so and getting dismissed because one of them happened to be gay would be ludicrous.

No, I mean that if your just avoiding someone thats gay because they are gay. If you generally avoid people its not a big deal.
I'd send them home if they were acting that way towards anyone.


And how do you prove that it's due to sexual orientation and not due to other factors?


Ya know when the guy says he can't work alongside this guy cause he likes d*ck, that would be a good start.


I don't see how sexual orientation should affect people at all. I don't believe in treating people any better or worse because of the genetalia they prefer.


That's what you think. Step outside yourself and look at the real world.


Maybe you should do the same sometime.

Its pretty easy to tell why people are weary of others, and attacking someone just for geing gay is not a good reason. Then again I'm against all attacks really. Then again I'm against war in general, so under my system there wouldn't be a need for any of this regulation :p

Again, outside your own little mind, have a look at the present situation and the real world. Hazing occurs en masse.

Exactly, but it doesn't need to happen because of that.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 11:28:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 11:14:27 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?

Do you seriously not get it?

Right now, DADT is legal because they think certain soldiers would have a problem serving with gay people. If this hypothetical (awesome) law were implemented, it would be holding soldiers to the SAME STANDARDS EVERY OTHER WORKING CITIZEN IS HELD TO and that is to get over your bigotry and assimilate with those who don't pose any realistic threat to you or your job. The way they'd "find out who the homophobes are" would be to simply kick out the ones who complain that they can't properly work alongside a gay person because, obviously, their homophobia is dehabilitating and makes them unqualified to do the job.

Panda PLEASE debate me on whether or not to repeal DADT and let me obliterate you if you really feel this way.

I'm not against repealing DADT, I'm against dismissing soldiers for hate crimes. Learn to read my arguments woman and don't strawman,.

At 9/22/2010 11:18:50 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:10:01 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Then you're going to be kicking out hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers.

HAHAHA.

So?

Because there are trained soldiers who are better than green soldiers. Oh, and America has an ongoing war. Oh, and America "supports" more than a handful of nations.


First of all, you have no idea how many people are really homophobic or how many just have to pretend they are. Find me ONE statistic that says thousands of soldiers would quit.

I never said quit, I said dismissed for being discriminatory against gays if it there was a hate crime law within the military.

There are already gays serving in the military - just not openly - and whether or not they SAY they like d!ck has absolutely NO BEARING on whether or not they do, so this is entirely irrelevant. There is NO reason why it makes a difference whether or not the guy shooting the same people you are likes sucking c0ck or not. This is obvious.

And this has got what to do with my stance that the US military shouldn't have hate crime laws?


Plus, people who join the military likely do so for money and job security. This would still be there whether gays can serve openly or not. They wouldn't give this up on the OFF CHANCE that 1 out of every 1,000 soldiers MIGHT think they are decent looking.

Ok?


A reason for DADT is pressure from the military itself, they are fully aware of the negative effects of putting gays in the military.

So I'm assuming you'll take me up on my offer to debate me. You said you wanted to debate me - why not this? Clearly I feel very strongly about it and completely opposite of you.

Not really. I'm, not pro-DADT tbh.


Besides, things like this are silly,. If they perform hazing on a gay without knowing of their sexual orientation a handful of soldiers will be sent away for a hate crime.

Need proof Panda doesn't know much about the military or this policy? Here it is :)

Lolwut?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 11:36:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 11:24:52 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:19:55 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:15:40 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:10:01 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:06:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :

Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.

This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?

I would say that if they ya know start attacking or discriminating against their gay peers it should be enough to get them out.
Obviously don't kick anyone out that hasn't done anything wrong.

Then you're going to be kicking out hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers., A reason for DADT is pressure from the military itself, they are fully aware of the negative effects of putting gays in the military.


What?

Rape.


LMFAO!!! Yeah I like girls so if I'm placed around a bunch of them I'm gunna rape them? L is a huge rapist? I mean come one, seriously.

Lol, rape already occurs in the army. Regardless I really don't give a sh*t about gay people serving in the army, just hate crimes.


Besides, things like this are silly,. If they perform hazing on a gay without knowing of their sexual orientation a handful of soldiers will be sent away for a hate crime. Which would be pretty ridiculous. Armies are a place where fights, rows, etc. can break out, and doing so and getting dismissed because one of them happened to be gay would be ludicrous.

No, I mean that if your just avoiding someone thats gay because they are gay. If you generally avoid people its not a big deal.
I'd send them home if they were acting that way towards anyone.


And how do you prove that it's due to sexual orientation and not due to other factors?


Ya know when the guy says he can't work alongside this guy cause he likes d*ck, that would be a good start.

I don't like X. X likes d*ck. Ergo, I'm a homophobe...?



I don't see how sexual orientation should affect people at all. I don't believe in treating people any better or worse because of the genetalia they prefer.


That's what you think. Step outside yourself and look at the real world.


Maybe you should do the same sometime.

I already do.


Its pretty easy to tell why people are weary of others, and attacking someone just for geing gay is not a good reason. Then again I'm against all attacks really. Then again I'm against war in general, so under my system there wouldn't be a need for any of this regulation :p

Again, outside your own little mind, have a look at the present situation and the real world. Hazing occurs en masse.

Exactly, but it doesn't need to happen because of that.

Wut? Because of what?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 11:49:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 11:36:54 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:24:52 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:19:55 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:15:40 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:10:01 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:06:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :

Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.

This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?

I would say that if they ya know start attacking or discriminating against their gay peers it should be enough to get them out.
Obviously don't kick anyone out that hasn't done anything wrong.

Then you're going to be kicking out hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers., A reason for DADT is pressure from the military itself, they are fully aware of the negative effects of putting gays in the military.


What?

Rape.


LMFAO!!! Yeah I like girls so if I'm placed around a bunch of them I'm gunna rape them? L is a huge rapist? I mean come one, seriously.

Lol, rape already occurs in the army. Regardless I really don't give a sh*t about gay people serving in the army, just hate crimes.


I can agree to that, but I think its crime reguardless.
Lol and really its kind of like saying gays should be kept seperate because rape happens. Get the rapists away and kill the SOB, but being gay doesn't make one a rapist.


Besides, things like this are silly,. If they perform hazing on a gay without knowing of their sexual orientation a handful of soldiers will be sent away for a hate crime. Which would be pretty ridiculous. Armies are a place where fights, rows, etc. can break out, and doing so and getting dismissed because one of them happened to be gay would be ludicrous.

No, I mean that if your just avoiding someone thats gay because they are gay. If you generally avoid people its not a big deal.
I'd send them home if they were acting that way towards anyone.


And how do you prove that it's due to sexual orientation and not due to other factors?


Ya know when the guy says he can't work alongside this guy cause he likes d*ck, that would be a good start.

I don't like X. X likes d*ck. Ergo, I'm a homophobe...?


No, "X likes dick. I don't like guys liking d*ck. I act out against X, ergo I'm a homophobe"
Lets take CJL for example, almost everyone here pretty much hated him.
Almost no one here is homophobic.
You can be against a gay person and not be homophobic.
Its over sensitivity on both parts that screws this stuff up.



I don't see how sexual orientation should affect people at all. I don't believe in treating people any better or worse because of the genetalia they prefer.


That's what you think. Step outside yourself and look at the real world.


Maybe you should do the same sometime.

I already do.


Sure.


Its pretty easy to tell why people are weary of others, and attacking someone just for geing gay is not a good reason. Then again I'm against all attacks really. Then again I'm against war in general, so under my system there wouldn't be a need for any of this regulation :p

Again, outside your own little mind, have a look at the present situation and the real world. Hazing occurs en masse.

Exactly, but it doesn't need to happen because of that.

Wut? Because of what?

Because someone is gay. For example you have a close friend, and they tell you they are gay. There is no reason to act against them for being gay. If someone does, they are most likely homophobic, or have some kind of egotistical notion that goes "X likes d*ck, I have d*ck, ergo, X likes me" Straight women don't like you just because you have d*ck, unless they are really that slutty...
Same goes with gay men.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 12:03:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 11:49:54 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:36:54 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:24:52 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:19:55 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:15:40 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:10:01 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:06:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :

Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.

This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?

I would say that if they ya know start attacking or discriminating against their gay peers it should be enough to get them out.
Obviously don't kick anyone out that hasn't done anything wrong.

Then you're going to be kicking out hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers., A reason for DADT is pressure from the military itself, they are fully aware of the negative effects of putting gays in the military.


What?

Rape.


LMFAO!!! Yeah I like girls so if I'm placed around a bunch of them I'm gunna rape them? L is a huge rapist? I mean come one, seriously.

Lol, rape already occurs in the army. Regardless I really don't give a sh*t about gay people serving in the army, just hate crimes.


I can agree to that, but I think its crime reguardless.

I hit you. OMFG YOU'RE A WOMAN I'M A MISOGYNIST HATE CRIME!

Lol and really its kind of like saying gays should be kept seperate because rape happens. Get the rapists away and kill the SOB, but being gay doesn't make one a rapist.

Just a side effect, doesn't really warrant it though.



Besides, things like this are silly,. If they perform hazing on a gay without knowing of their sexual orientation a handful of soldiers will be sent away for a hate crime. Which would be pretty ridiculous. Armies are a place where fights, rows, etc. can break out, and doing so and getting dismissed because one of them happened to be gay would be ludicrous.

No, I mean that if your just avoiding someone thats gay because they are gay. If you generally avoid people its not a big deal.
I'd send them home if they were acting that way towards anyone.


And how do you prove that it's due to sexual orientation and not due to other factors?


Ya know when the guy says he can't work alongside this guy cause he likes d*ck, that would be a good start.

I don't like X. X likes d*ck. Ergo, I'm a homophobe...?


No, "X likes dick. I don't like guys liking d*ck. I act out against X, ergo I'm a homophobe"
Lets take CJL for example, almost everyone here pretty much hated him.
Almost no one here is homophobic.
You can be against a gay person and not be homophobic.
Its over sensitivity on both parts that screws this stuff up.

And how can you prove that in a court of law?




I don't see how sexual orientation should affect people at all. I don't believe in treating people any better or worse because of the genetalia they prefer.


That's what you think. Step outside yourself and look at the real world.


Maybe you should do the same sometime.

I already do.


Sure.

Cool.



Its pretty easy to tell why people are weary of others, and attacking someone just for geing gay is not a good reason. Then again I'm against all attacks really. Then again I'm against war in general, so under my system there wouldn't be a need for any of this regulation :p

Again, outside your own little mind, have a look at the present situation and the real world. Hazing occurs en masse.

Exactly, but it doesn't need to happen because of that.

Wut? Because of what?

Because someone is gay. For example you have a close friend, and they tell you they are gay. There is no reason to act against them for being gay. If someone does, they are most likely homophobic, or have some kind of egotistical notion that goes "X likes d*ck, I have d*ck, ergo, X likes me" Straight women don't like you just because you have d*ck, unless they are really that slutty...
Same goes with gay men.

Right, and what's the problem with that?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 12:07:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 12:03:24 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:49:54 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:36:54 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:24:52 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:19:55 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:15:40 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:10:01 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:06:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :

Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.

This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?

I would say that if they ya know start attacking or discriminating against their gay peers it should be enough to get them out.
Obviously don't kick anyone out that hasn't done anything wrong.

Then you're going to be kicking out hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers., A reason for DADT is pressure from the military itself, they are fully aware of the negative effects of putting gays in the military.


What?

Rape.


LMFAO!!! Yeah I like girls so if I'm placed around a bunch of them I'm gunna rape them? L is a huge rapist? I mean come one, seriously.

Lol, rape already occurs in the army. Regardless I really don't give a sh*t about gay people serving in the army, just hate crimes.


I can agree to that, but I think its crime reguardless.

I hit you. OMFG YOU'RE A WOMAN I'M A MISOGYNIST HATE CRIME!


No you hit me and you violate the law on the grounds of violence, and should be treated just the same.

Lol and really its kind of like saying gays should be kept seperate because rape happens. Get the rapists away and kill the SOB, but being gay doesn't make one a rapist.

Just a side effect, doesn't really warrant it though.



Besides, things like this are silly,. If they perform hazing on a gay without knowing of their sexual orientation a handful of soldiers will be sent away for a hate crime. Which would be pretty ridiculous. Armies are a place where fights, rows, etc. can break out, and doing so and getting dismissed because one of them happened to be gay would be ludicrous.

No, I mean that if your just avoiding someone thats gay because they are gay. If you generally avoid people its not a big deal.
I'd send them home if they were acting that way towards anyone.


And how do you prove that it's due to sexual orientation and not due to other factors?


Ya know when the guy says he can't work alongside this guy cause he likes d*ck, that would be a good start.

I don't like X. X likes d*ck. Ergo, I'm a homophobe...?


No, "X likes dick. I don't like guys liking d*ck. I act out against X, ergo I'm a homophobe"
Lets take CJL for example, almost everyone here pretty much hated him.
Almost no one here is homophobic.
You can be against a gay person and not be homophobic.
Its over sensitivity on both parts that screws this stuff up.

And how can you prove that in a court of law?


Witnesses and such.




I don't see how sexual orientation should affect people at all. I don't believe in treating people any better or worse because of the genetalia they prefer.


That's what you think. Step outside yourself and look at the real world.


Maybe you should do the same sometime.

I already do.


Sure.

Cool.


Awesome.



Its pretty easy to tell why people are weary of others, and attacking someone just for geing gay is not a good reason. Then again I'm against all attacks really. Then again I'm against war in general, so under my system there wouldn't be a need for any of this regulation :p

Again, outside your own little mind, have a look at the present situation and the real world. Hazing occurs en masse.

Exactly, but it doesn't need to happen because of that.

Wut? Because of what?

Because someone is gay. For example you have a close friend, and they tell you they are gay. There is no reason to act against them for being gay. If someone does, they are most likely homophobic, or have some kind of egotistical notion that goes "X likes d*ck, I have d*ck, ergo, X likes me" Straight women don't like you just because you have d*ck, unless they are really that slutty...
Same goes with gay men.

Right, and what's the problem with that?

Wrong with what? Not being over sensitive cause there's a gay guy? Nothing.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 12:14:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Straight male soldiers rape female soldiers all the damn time. Does this mean that men shouldn't serve in the military? No.

Gay male soldiers are already IN THE MILITARY and they are not going around raping male soldiers (can't say that about their counterparts). Lesbian soldiers are serving and they are not going around raping other female soldiers. That's just RIDICULOUS logic. I am absolutely FLOORED and hell even rather insulted...
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 12:18:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 12:28:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 12:07:09 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 12:03:24 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:49:54 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:36:54 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:24:52 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:19:55 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:15:40 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:10:01 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:06:05 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/22/2010 11:03:39 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/21/2010 6:19:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
She proposes a new law in place of DADT: Instead of sending home the soldiers who are gay, sending home the soldiers whose homophobia stands in the way of them being able to effectively serve; it's like a prejudice handicap. I like the idea :

Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day! The US military is still a haven for conservative Republicans, though that demographic has slowly been shifting.

This. Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively? Subject them to the same tests that gays were subjected to before DADT?

I would say that if they ya know start attacking or discriminating against their gay peers it should be enough to get them out.
Obviously don't kick anyone out that hasn't done anything wrong.

Then you're going to be kicking out hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers., A reason for DADT is pressure from the military itself, they are fully aware of the negative effects of putting gays in the military.


What?

Rape.


LMFAO!!! Yeah I like girls so if I'm placed around a bunch of them I'm gunna rape them? L is a huge rapist? I mean come one, seriously.

Lol, rape already occurs in the army. Regardless I really don't give a sh*t about gay people serving in the army, just hate crimes.


I can agree to that, but I think its crime reguardless.

I hit you. OMFG YOU'RE A WOMAN I'M A MISOGYNIST HATE CRIME!


No you hit me and you violate the law on the grounds of violence, and should be treated just the same.

Right, and this happens with every crime of is category. How do you then distinguish hate crimes?

Besides, things like this are silly,. If they perform hazing on a gay without knowing of their sexual orientation a handful of soldiers will be sent away for a hate crime. Which would be pretty ridiculous. Armies are a place where fights, rows, etc. can break out, and doing so and getting dismissed because one of them happened to be gay would be ludicrous.

No, I mean that if your just avoiding someone thats gay because they are gay. If you generally avoid people its not a big deal.
I'd send them home if they were acting that way towards anyone.


And how do you prove that it's due to sexual orientation and not due to other factors?


Ya know when the guy says he can't work alongside this guy cause he likes d*ck, that would be a good start.

I don't like X. X likes d*ck. Ergo, I'm a homophobe...?


No, "X likes dick. I don't like guys liking d*ck. I act out against X, ergo I'm a homophobe"
Lets take CJL for example, almost everyone here pretty much hated him.
Almost no one here is homophobic.
You can be against a gay person and not be homophobic.
Its over sensitivity on both parts that screws this stuff up.

And how can you prove that in a court of law?


Witnesses and such.

Witnesses saw a beating, and can conclude it was racially motivated?



Its pretty easy to tell why people are weary of others, and attacking someone just for geing gay is not a good reason. Then again I'm against all attacks really. Then again I'm against war in general, so under my system there wouldn't be a need for any of this regulation :p

Again, outside your own little mind, have a look at the present situation and the real world. Hazing occurs en masse.

Exactly, but it doesn't need to happen because of that.

Wut? Because of what?

Because someone is gay. For example you have a close friend, and they tell you they are gay. There is no reason to act against them for being gay. If someone does, they are most likely homophobic, or have some kind of egotistical notion that goes "X likes d*ck, I have d*ck, ergo, X likes me" Straight women don't like you just because you have d*ck, unless they are really that slutty...
Same goes with gay men.

Right, and what's the problem with that?

Wrong with what? Not being over sensitive cause there's a gay guy? Nothing.

Ok?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2010 12:46:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/22/2010 11:28:37 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I'm not against repealing DADT, I'm against dismissing soldiers for hate crimes. Learn to read my arguments woman and don't strawman.

You said "This" in referring to:

"Then you would effectively dismantle the entire US military in one day!"

In response to the suggestion of getting rid of homophobic soldiers.

You also said:

"Besides, who are you going to root out Homophobes effectively?"

In other words, you are in favor of keeping homophobes in the military, and not expecting them to deal with the assimilation of gays in the military - ergo it seems you are in FAVOR of DADT. What am I missing?

You say I'm straw manning? Do you know the proper definition of strawman? I'm referencing your direct quote about acceptable homophobia and now you say you were talking about hate crimes. Nowhere did I ever once mention hate crimes nor did you until after you already posted that. I did not straw man you.

"Then you're going to be kicking out hundreds, maybe even thousands, of soldiers., A reason for DADT is pressure from the military itself, they are fully aware of the negative effects of putting gays in the military." - You

Because there are trained soldiers who are better than green soldiers. Oh, and America has an ongoing war. Oh, and America "supports" more than a handful of nations.

- Soldiers are a dime a fvcking dozen. Moreover you never evidenced that this would result in a drastic and abrupt exit from the military.

- Oh, and America's supposedly ending this "ongoing war."

- Oh, and it's not America's fvcking job to be policing the world, or "supporting" other nations. In case you haven't noticed, only war-mongering Americans are in favor of this; liberals and libertarians are not. We should be ENCOURAGING a smaller army.

I never said quit, I said dismissed for being discriminatory against gays if it there was a hate crime law within the military.

I don't advocate bigots being dismissed, but it'd be far more logical to dismiss those who have such a problem serving their country with gays than it is to dismiss the innocent gay whose done nothing wrong to anyone whatsoever. We don't change the fvcking laws to appease a$sholes Panda. When we finally had the good sense to include black troops with whites, the racists HAD TO ACCEPT IT. You're saying the racists had to suck it up and not be bigots but the homophoboes don't?! Yeah that's really logical. Really.

And this has got what to do with my stance that the US military shouldn't have hate crime laws?

Lol. This is such backwards thinking it's not even funny.

Instead of being concerned about protecting the one who is hurt from a hate crime, you care more about protecting the violent offender. Ahh, I see. That makes sense *eye roll* Even if they hit another soldier without the intent of being homophobic, they shouldn't be hitting others in the first place! So once again instead of trying to uphold the good values, you care more about protecting the one who broke the rules. That's a great moral system you have.

Not really. I'm, not pro-DADT tbh.

You've just been ranting and raving about how if gays were allowed in the military, there would be "negative results" (direct quote) and you said that your major concern is that fights would turn to hate crimes. In other words, you don't want gays in the military because otherwise people would be "wrongfully" punished for hate crimes. Wtf am I missing? You're seriously contradicting yourself left and right.

Why don't you state exactly what it is your belief is, and so far it seems contrary to mine, so I'm sure I'd be willing to debate it.
President of DDO