Total Posts:118|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

DADT Repeal Passed!!!!

LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I, for one, am not glad.
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.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 2:58:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?

The wars the military is currently fighting are evil. No one's rights are being violated, since no one has a 'right' to fight an evil war. The more people that are kicked out of the military, for any reason, the better.
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.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 3:03:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 2:58:05 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?

The wars the military is currently fighting are evil. No one's rights are being violated, since no one has a 'right' to fight an evil war. The more people that are kicked out of the military, for any reason, the better.

But if there is a war -- which there is -- I'd prefer that no law be implemented which says, "You can fight since you're straight. But... eww... You're gay? Should have kept that to yourself. Bye bye."

Even if I'm against wars existing -- since there is no logical premise to them -- I'm still not going to agree with DADT. Ever.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 3:06:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My view is that sexuality should not even be brought to discussion in the military, if there are such disputes about what should be told and what should not.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 3:08:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 3:03:59 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:58:05 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?

The wars the military is currently fighting are evil. No one's rights are being violated, since no one has a 'right' to fight an evil war. The more people that are kicked out of the military, for any reason, the better.

But if there is a war -- which there is -- I'd prefer that no law be implemented which says, "You can fight since you're straight. But... eww... You're gay? Should have kept that to yourself. Bye bye."

Even if I'm against wars existing -- since there is no logical premise to them -- I'm still not going to agree with DADT. Ever.

But why? Sure, it's a bad reason to discriminate against someone, but it's like hating a Nazi policy that mandated that only men can be concentration camp guards. Assuming that women are just as capable as men of doing this job, then barring women from the job is a stupid way to discriminate. I still wouldn't oppose the policy, because A) no one has the right to be a concentration camp guard, so I don't feel sorry for the women who've been denied this position and B) obviously, the world is better off with fewer concentration camp guards.
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.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 3:17:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 3:08:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 3:03:59 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:58:05 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?

The wars the military is currently fighting are evil. No one's rights are being violated, since no one has a 'right' to fight an evil war. The more people that are kicked out of the military, for any reason, the better.

But if there is a war -- which there is -- I'd prefer that no law be implemented which says, "You can fight since you're straight. But... eww... You're gay? Should have kept that to yourself. Bye bye."

Even if I'm against wars existing -- since there is no logical premise to them -- I'm still not going to agree with DADT. Ever.

But why? Sure, it's a bad reason to discriminate against someone, but it's like hating a Nazi policy that mandated that only men can be concentration camp guards. Assuming that women are just as capable as men of doing this job, then barring women from the job is a stupid way to discriminate. I still wouldn't oppose the policy, because A) no one has the right to be a concentration camp guard, so I don't feel sorry for the women who've been denied this position and B) obviously, the world is better off with fewer concentration camp guards.

I don't have a problem with all discrimination. Businesses should be able to discriminate based upon what's best for their business and so on. However, there are some forms of discrimination that are so illogical that I would never support them. This would be discrimination based upon:
- gender
- sexual orientation
- eye color
- hair color

In my opinion, to discriminate based upon these attributes is idiotic. So, since DADT discriminates against those who are homosexual, I will not support them. If there is no logical premise, then I will not stand behind it -- even if it does cut down on the number of people serving in the military. I won't sacrifice my own rationale just to see less people join the army.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 3:24:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 3:17:57 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 3:08:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 3:03:59 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:58:05 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?

The wars the military is currently fighting are evil. No one's rights are being violated, since no one has a 'right' to fight an evil war. The more people that are kicked out of the military, for any reason, the better.

But if there is a war -- which there is -- I'd prefer that no law be implemented which says, "You can fight since you're straight. But... eww... You're gay? Should have kept that to yourself. Bye bye."

Even if I'm against wars existing -- since there is no logical premise to them -- I'm still not going to agree with DADT. Ever.

But why? Sure, it's a bad reason to discriminate against someone, but it's like hating a Nazi policy that mandated that only men can be concentration camp guards. Assuming that women are just as capable as men of doing this job, then barring women from the job is a stupid way to discriminate. I still wouldn't oppose the policy, because A) no one has the right to be a concentration camp guard, so I don't feel sorry for the women who've been denied this position and B) obviously, the world is better off with fewer concentration camp guards.

I don't have a problem with all discrimination. Businesses should be able to discriminate based upon what's best for their business and so on. However, there are some forms of discrimination that are so illogical that I would never support them. This would be discrimination based upon:
- gender
- sexual orientation
- eye color
- hair color

In my opinion, to discriminate based upon these attributes is idiotic. So, since DADT discriminates against those who are homosexual, I will not support them. If there is no logical premise, then I will not stand behind it -- even if it does cut down on the number of people serving in the military. I won't sacrifice my own rationale just to see less people join the army.

But there IS a logical reason for it--there are less people in the military because of it. That isn't the reason the military uses to kick those people out, but that logical reason still exists. I don't see what difference the motives of government are, as long as the actual effects of the policy are logical.

And if the motives of the government do matter--then I'd still support DADT. The government's reason for repealing it isn't because they give a sh­it about gay people--if they did, they'd get rid of DOMA. They're doing it so that the military has more people and can fight its evil wars more effectively--clearly a bad and illogical motive.
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.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 3:26:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?

See, the votes were there. :) *High Five*
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 4:43:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 3:24:53 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 3:17:57 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 3:08:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 3:03:59 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:58:05 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

But there IS a logical reason for it--there are less people in the military because of it.

That does not make the law itself logical. If there is no logical premise for the discrimination, then regardless of the "benefits", it IS illogical.

That isn't the reason the military uses to kick those people out, but that logical reason still exists.

That's not a 'logical reason'. That's merely a side effect to the law -- which doesn't make the law itself any more justifiable.

I don't see what difference the motives of government are, as long as the actual effects of the policy are logical.

The effects are not the problem, though. I will not support the policy -- even if there is a "good benefit". It would be like outlawing junk food. Yes, less people would eat crap and maybe obesity would decrease. That still doesn't make outlawing junk food a logical policy.

And if the motives of the government do matter--then I'd still support DADT.

You like DADT?

The government's reason for repealing it isn't because they give a sh­it about gay people--if they did, they'd get rid of DOMA.

That's sad. I see no reason to be against someone based upon their sexual orientation.

They're doing it so that the military has more people and can fight its evil wars more effectively--clearly a bad and illogical motive.

It was repealed because they found it to be discriminatory and illogical. They were fearful of the army being filled of homophobics and that it would affect "morale" if gays served openly. When they were confronted with factual evidence that the army does not give a sh!t about sexual orientation, it was repealed.

Having more people to fight may have been a motive and even if it was, I still do not support DADT. The law is illogical and the discrimination is unsupportable.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 4:44:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 3:26:18 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?

See, the votes were there. :) *High Five*

Booyah! *high five*
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:32:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 4:44:09 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 3:26:18 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?

See, the votes were there. :) *High Five*

Booyah! *high five*

Now what happens to all of the people that were kicked out?
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:36:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 5:32:27 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 4:44:09 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 3:26:18 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?

See, the votes were there. :) *High Five*

Booyah! *high five*

Now what happens to all of the people that were kicked out?

Well, my cousin received a letter saying that he still wasn't legally allowed to reapply for service in the US Marines since he WAS dishonarbly discharged. Even though it was because he was gay and now that illogical policy has been repealed... Wtf?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:39:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 5:36:21 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:32:27 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 4:44:09 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 3:26:18 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?

See, the votes were there. :) *High Five*

Booyah! *high five*

Now what happens to all of the people that were kicked out?

Well, my cousin received a letter saying that he still wasn't legally allowed to reapply for service in the US Marines since he WAS dishonarbly discharged. Even though it was because he was gay and now that illogical policy has been repealed... Wtf?

Hmm... Well, it just happened today and it will most likely be implemented gradually. He will probably get another letter sometime soon.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:41:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 5:39:37 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:36:21 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:32:27 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 4:44:09 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 3:26:18 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?

See, the votes were there. :) *High Five*

Booyah! *high five*

Now what happens to all of the people that were kicked out?

Well, my cousin received a letter saying that he still wasn't legally allowed to reapply for service in the US Marines since he WAS dishonarbly discharged. Even though it was because he was gay and now that illogical policy has been repealed... Wtf?

Hmm... Well, it just happened today and it will most likely be implemented gradually. He will probably get another letter sometime soon.

The letter said that even if the policy was repealed, dishonorable discharges were final. :/
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:43:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 5:39:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Thank Eris! Now only if the military was repealed.

I feel some degree of sympathy for Teddy Roosevelt's foreign policy, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". No military = no stick.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:44:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@ann

If there was a law that said it was legal for straight people to rape people, but illegal for gay people to rape people, I assume you'd oppose this law. Ideally, it would be illegal for anyone to rape anyone. But if that weren't possible for whatever reason, what would you prefer--that the law stayed the same, or that the law was changed so that it was now legal for gays to rape people? If you'd prefer the latter, then why does your opinion change when 'raping people' is changed to 'murdering Arabs'?
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.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:45:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 5:41:15 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:39:37 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:36:21 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:32:27 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 4:44:09 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 3:26:18 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:55:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 2:47:08 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
I, for one, am not glad.

Why not?

See, the votes were there. :) *High Five*

Booyah! *high five*

Now what happens to all of the people that were kicked out?

Well, my cousin received a letter saying that he still wasn't legally allowed to reapply for service in the US Marines since he WAS dishonarbly discharged. Even though it was because he was gay and now that illogical policy has been repealed... Wtf?

Hmm... Well, it just happened today and it will most likely be implemented gradually. He will probably get another letter sometime soon.

The letter said that even if the policy was repealed, dishonorable discharges were final. :/

That stinks. :(
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:46:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 5:44:28 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
@ann

If there was a law that said it was legal for straight people to rape people, but illegal for gay people to rape people, I assume you'd oppose this law. Ideally, it would be illegal for anyone to rape anyone. But if that weren't possible for whatever reason, what would you prefer--that the law stayed the same, or that the law was changed so that it was now legal for gays to rape people? If you'd prefer the former, then why does your opinion change when 'raping people' is changed to 'murdering Arabs'?
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.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:52:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 5:44:28 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
@ann

If there was a law that said it was legal for straight people to rape people, but illegal for gay people to rape people, I assume you'd oppose this law.

I'm not one to advocate for the infringement of the personal right to choose who your sexual partner is so I'd advocate for the law to be repealed. Not on the grounds of discrimination but on premise that it denies all the right to personal liberty and choice in regards to sexual intercourse.

Ideally, it would be illegal for anyone to rape anyone.

Yes.

But if that weren't possible for whatever reason, what would you prefer--that the law stayed the same, or that the law was changed so that it was now legal for gays to rape people?

I'd advocate for the law to be repealed and for rape to be avoided. I see no reason for the loss of personal choice.

If you'd prefer the latter, then why does your opinion change when 'raping people' is changed to 'murdering Arabs'?

I don't advocate for the murder of Arabs or rape. I'm against the laws that choose to discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:55:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just to be clear, you're saying you'd rather it be legal for anyone to rape anyone than for only homosexual rape to be illegal?
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.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:57:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 5:55:59 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Just to be clear, you're saying you'd rather it be legal for anyone to rape anyone than for only homosexual rape to be illegal?

No. I'm saying that a policy that makes rape legal for ANYONE would be against what I believe to be logical and therefore I'd advocate AGAINST it.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 5:59:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 5:57:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:55:59 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Just to be clear, you're saying you'd rather it be legal for anyone to rape anyone than for only homosexual rape to be illegal?

No. I'm saying that a policy that makes rape legal for ANYONE would be against what I believe to be logical and therefore I'd advocate AGAINST it.

Obviously you'd be against that law, and think that rape should be illegal for everyone, straight or gay. That's not what I asked. If the only two choices possible were: A) rape is legal for everyone or B) only homosexual rape is illegal, which would you choose?
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.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 6:01:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 5:59:29 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:57:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:55:59 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Just to be clear, you're saying you'd rather it be legal for anyone to rape anyone than for only homosexual rape to be illegal?

No. I'm saying that a policy that makes rape legal for ANYONE would be against what I believe to be logical and therefore I'd advocate AGAINST it.

Obviously you'd be against that law, and think that rape should be illegal for everyone, straight or gay. That's not what I asked. If the only two choices possible were: A) rape is legal for everyone or B) only homosexual rape is illegal, which would you choose?

Then I would move out of the fvcking country. Both of those choices are against what I think are logical. Sorry, I'm not going to say I'd advocate for either of them.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 6:03:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 6:01:31 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:59:29 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:57:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:55:59 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Just to be clear, you're saying you'd rather it be legal for anyone to rape anyone than for only homosexual rape to be illegal?

No. I'm saying that a policy that makes rape legal for ANYONE would be against what I believe to be logical and therefore I'd advocate AGAINST it.

Obviously you'd be against that law, and think that rape should be illegal for everyone, straight or gay. That's not what I asked. If the only two choices possible were: A) rape is legal for everyone or B) only homosexual rape is illegal, which would you choose?

Then I would move out of the fvcking country. Both of those choices are against what I think are logical. Sorry, I'm not going to say I'd advocate for either of them.

OK, let's say this is in a different country, and didn't affect you. If the law were changed from B to A in that country, would you celebrate it, because the law became less discriminatory?
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.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 6:04:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 5:43:17 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:39:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Thank Eris! Now only if the military was repealed.

I feel some degree of sympathy for Teddy Roosevelt's foreign policy, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". No military = no stick.

Ha. Teddy was one of the biggest imperialists ever.

Anyway, the necessary of a military is founded on circular reasoning. We only need them because they exist.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 6:04:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I can certainly sympathize with LF in that I'm quite glad the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is intolerant of homosexuality within its ranks. It tends to be advantageous for the other side.

Though I can't sympathize with his choice of victor (for since you are asking Annhasle to choose "realistically," based on present circumstances of the military, you must also choose realistically in this: would you rather the victory go to the US or to theocrats?)
Certainly, if the US were fighting some kind of user-fee minarchy I'd be saddened at the news of the DADT repeal-- but it ISN'T. The only "Arabs being murdered" are those who will be murdered or enslaved anyway by some other group-- it's not marginal to the question of whether to support the US.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2010 6:10:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2010 6:03:23 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 6:01:31 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:59:29 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:57:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/18/2010 5:55:59 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Just to be clear, you're saying you'd rather it be legal for anyone to rape anyone than for only homosexual rape to be illegal?

No. I'm saying that a policy that makes rape legal for ANYONE would be against what I believe to be logical and therefore I'd advocate AGAINST it.

Obviously you'd be against that law, and think that rape should be illegal for everyone, straight or gay. That's not what I asked. If the only two choices possible were: A) rape is legal for everyone or B) only homosexual rape is illegal, which would you choose?

Then I would move out of the fvcking country. Both of those choices are against what I think are logical. Sorry, I'm not going to say I'd advocate for either of them.

OK, let's say this is in a different country, and didn't affect you. If the law were changed from B to A in that country, would you celebrate it, because the law became less discriminatory?

You have to remain logical about this and weight the costs and benefits. Obviously, their law would be discriminatory. However, in this case, the law would put thousands at risk of being raped. I'm not willing to advocate for rape just because the law was discriminatory. Come on, which is more harmful here?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.