- Joined
- May 14, 2009
- Messages
- 24,505
- Reaction score
- 8,592
- Location
- Israel
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Then there's nothing to debate here, you choose not to see reason.Dumb assumptions by policy makers.
Then there's nothing to debate here, you choose not to see reason.Dumb assumptions by policy makers.
You do realize how insignificant the money that goes to showers is when compared with the rest of the military expanses, like, say, a predator UAV?
Wrong - for the military's interests - and that's why there's nothing nanny about it.
Then there's nothing to debate here, you choose not to see reason.
I'm entirely fine with gays in the military, there have always been gays, there will always be gays, they deserve to be able to serve their country just like anyone else.
Frankly, the reason lots of people have given, that the military is too butch to deal with it, is a fairly pathetic excuse. The fact that lots of military men (and women too, I suppose) are homophobic is a sign of their immaturity and emotional stagnation, certainly not something to be proud of.
I know.Yeah, but Predators are awesome.
The soldier is the property of the military.Ok, why does the military have an interest in treating soldiers like they can't handle sharing showers?
Common sense describes a reason for having a reason, it is not a reason for itself but it certainly is an ally.Reason involves conclusions drawn from accepted premises. Stating that a premise is "common sense" is not reason
Look, when arguing over issues that affect a collective, I tend to separate between my own, personal opinion (what I think is right for me) and the concern for the collective (what I think is right for everyone as one grouped entity).It is simply an unsubstantiated premise. If you would like to make a reasoned argument for why such an absurd policy should exist, I am all ears.
It would be a hell of a fun I'd tell you that.What do you imagine the consequences would be if men and women showered together?
I don't think that women and men would ever share showers in the military. (except, as mentioned, in submarines)Since, as you have observed, there is no innate difference between the attraction of a straight man to a woman and a gay man to another man, and there have been no observable consequences of allowing gay men to shower together, one can project that there would similarly be no observable consequences to allowing men and women to shower together.
That is reason.
I've said nothing false.There's nothing you should be sorry about, you're simply making a false statement.
You really have a hard time distinguishing fact from fiction, don't you?And I laugh at that fictional belief.
It's military policy that soldiers are incapable of doing their jobs if they see a person they're attracted to?As usual, you've just made a wrong statement.
I have never claimed that the soldiers are not able(As stated quite clearly in my previous post, and as expected from anyone who is not brainless to be able to comprehend), but that this is a military policy.
Please do explain what opinions of our military are 'repulsive'? The opinions that I think they're of higher caliber than YOU obviously do? Only you could find that repulsive.It is only saddening that such people like you have such repulsive opinions about our military, and it only earns you disrespect in return.
Holy ****ing ****, are you kidding me? None of my business? Now I know you're full of ****. It is every BIT my business. It is my country, my military, and my tax dollars funding them. Every goddamn thing my country's military does is my business. ALL of it. It is ALL of our business and it's even more telling about you personally that you're of the mindset that it isn't our business. The **** it isn't.Then continue to hope, that's all you'll be able to do.
Point is, the military policy has nothing to do about you "hard-working" civilians, but about military personnel, and I'm sorry but it's none of your business.
False.I've said nothing false.
False.You really have a hard time distinguishing fact from fiction, don't you?
False.It's military policy that soldiers are incapable of doing their jobs if they see a person they're attracted to?
FalseI think they're of higher caliber than YOU obviously do?
False.Only you could find that repulsive.
Charming.Holy ****ing ****, are you kidding me? None of my business? Now I know you're full of ****. It is every BIT my business. It is my country, my military, and my tax dollars funding them. Every goddamn thing my country's military does is my business. ALL of it. It is ALL of our business and it's even more telling about you personally that you're of the mindset that it isn't our business. The **** it isn't.
False.
False.
False.
False
False.
Charming.
False.
Do I think they should? No.
Would I have a problem with that? No.
Then you've naturally succeeded in hiding it.
Yeah why won't you give me a moment and I'll count for you.
I don't need to prove that sexual distraction is considered a distraction, it's right there in the name of the term.
Oh so let me see if I understand, you claim that because women and men have a natural difference in strength, it means that women cannot shower with men together.
But only a moment ago you've stated that it shouldn't be a problem to have two opposing sexualities showering together, right?
You know, I've really given you a chance, but if you choose to be one of those internet retarded trolls who aren't capable of forming an argument, relying on baseless accusations and usually end up in the debate politics' recycling-bin, then so be it.
And you base that on?
And you just can't bear a thought.
Are they allowed to be open about their homosexuality? Are they showing up in military statistics?
No more than you're advocating homophobia when you refer to female to male relations as different than male to male or female to female relations.
And yet one of us has violated the forum's rules and would suffer from the consequences.
That's not the sole factor for "my point"'s validation.
:roflYou have apparently missed a whole paragraph.
Reported? :2razz:
... I look forward to the day gays can serve openly and without fear in the greatest military in the world. ...
Too late, they already do. Just not your military.
Too late, they already do. Just not your military.
I thought that you should know that I came up with something of substance.Wow, such a compelling argument you make!
When you actually come up with something of substance, why don't you let us know.
Housing lesbians and straight males together would cause a distraction among the females(lesbian) personnel?Oh but that would cause a distraction amongst our female personnel....righht?
And you were too busy riding the merry goes round in Lala land.You where probably too busy pissing Rivat off at that point to notice.
No, it only means that other options would have to be sought.I think that point was fairly obvious in what makes your argument flawed so one would have thought you would have picked up on where it was leading.
Yeah this is called an assumption.You mean you dont know? I just assumed you did when you said there isnt all that many gays in the military.
Perhaps I did not understand the question.Is that your argument?
Yes, but for a rape to occur a sexual attraction needs to be there first.No, it makes women more vulnerable in such circumstances, for example to sexual harrasment by men (and more dominantly sexual assault).
It still happens though, no?IF those men can be trusted to excercise a level of maturity and control, absolutely. Unfortunately we cannot account for every individual man and since homosexual assaults on straight men is something which is very uncommon
They don't.Its good they recycle.
That is your main question?The main question is, will you answer my question?
No, I've never been in a shower filled with gay men before, only one at a time really.Do you KNOW what happens when you stick gay men together in a shower?
You're the one who's asking me to prove the obvious.Mathematics. Statistically, gays are more probable in indulging in sexual activities in a shower full of gays then they would a shower full of straights.
As long as you avoid the spelling mistakes, sure.Lol thats actually quiet funny can i still that one? :mrgreen:
There are always other options to consider.Yeah anyway, your totally missing my point.
Straight men straight women seperation = good.
gay men straight men seperation = shower full of homosexuals = where is the less distraction in that?
Only if by pointless you mean that it is one point less than perfection.In otherwords, its a POINTLESS thing you are advocating.
As I said before, there are many other options to consider.Please present them.
So far we have agreed on seperating straights from gays will lessen distraction because sticking gays in a shower room full of other gays naturally does exactly that.
I eat debates for breakfast.:rofl
Cant take a debate? Its all good.
Since you've revealed your agenda.Since ive revealed your agenda
You have no interest in making a rational argument from this point onwards, and from this point backwards, and at this point.I have no interest in addressing your points from this point onwards because its irrelevant to my poll anyway.
No I believe that I have answered this question in my first post here.Its a yes or no question, and then you explain why or why not you want gays in the military and debate that.
If you wanna set up a seperate poll "should gays shower together", please be my quest, PM me the URL, and lets have some fun.
Certainly you are incapable of forming any kind of argument at all, forget an immature debate and mature debate, you do not even reach step one, which is to present your position in a civil way.ALSO your reply to Rivvat has prooven you are incapable of conducting a mature debate, so you ill return the favour and simply ignore your irrelevant opinons anyway. Post one more out of thread post, ill return the Report.
Housing lesbians and straight males together would cause a distraction among the females(lesbian) personnel?
Say what?
Seriously, having the lesbian female personnel housed together would be more likely to cause distraction because of the potential for inter-personal attraction, wouldn't it? Same with putting the gay men into a common housing situation.
Of course, that's logical... who around here is interested in that?
Either you have misunderstood that paragraph of his or I have.Seriously, having the lesbian female personnel housed together would be more likely to cause distraction because of the potential for inter-personal attraction, wouldn't it? Same with putting the gay men into a common housing situation.
Do not appeal to your own posts as logical, it doesn't look good when one is praising his own words.Of course, that's logical... who around here is interested in that?
I know! When I worked on the river, many of us guides - both male and female - changed clothes together before and after trips. I mean.. we saw each other nekkid! It's a wonder we were able to then paddle down class v rivers, taking 9 guest's lives into our hands, make split second decisions, and sometimes tend to serious injuries. I don't know how we did it. I mean, all I could think about while crashing my raft through 15 foot waves was, "I saw Tommy's pee pee!" It's a wonder we weren't all killed. :shock:
When I drove an ambulance, I had to share quarters with a male medic. We had to live together for days on end. Sleeping next to each other, seeing each other barely clothed. I don't know how we managed to actually save so many people's lives day in and day out. I mean, I remember once I was applying pressure to someone's femoral artery in an attempt to keep them from bleeding out (and save their leg) and all I could think was, "Goddamn I wanna **** my partner!"
/end sarcasm
I don't know how we do it either. We simply must be of better caliber than those who serve in our military.
Similarly, I worked in a police agency and the guys in my office (SWAT) stripped down in the office all the time before and after serving high hazard raids. I don't know how I managed to work with them without turning into a complete imbecile.
That is also false, as nobody has ever said that.It also boggles the mind why some people think our soldiers are so pathetic that they're incapable of doing the same thing.
Apocalypse said:It is not a question of "able" or "not able".
That is a military policy, effecting military personnel, AKA, soldiers.
If the military feels that this is a distraction, then it would take care of it.
Apocalypse said:As usual, you've just made a wrong statement.
I have never claimed that the soldiers are not able(As stated quite clearly in my previous post, and as expected from anyone who is not brainless to be able to comprehend), but that this is a military policy.
Seriously, having the lesbian female personnel housed together would be more likely to cause distraction because of the potential for inter-personal attraction, wouldn't it? Same with putting the gay men into a common housing situation.
Of course, that's logical... who around here is interested in that?
That post is, as the ones before it, inherently false.Apocolypse, i have made one simple conclusion from your point; this being, seperate gays with straights and stick gays together to lower sexual distraction. How you have managed to convince yourself that would lower sexual distraction is beyond me. Simply put, everything you have written thus far aimed at me in this poll is:
FALSE.
False.He is incapable of realizing that which is why he is still argueing his point.
Apocalypse said:Your point is valid(=the recognition that your point is actually a point), however there are not that many gay people in the military and it would minimize the unnecessary distraction to separate them. As I said many times already before, the military's policy is to avoid distractions when possible, with an emphasis on when possible.
No, it only means that other options would have to be sought.
Apocalypse said:There are always other options to consider.
Occupying the shower at different times is one.
Apocalypse said:I do agree with your point however that housing only gays together is a bad move, which is why I believe that the right housing move would be to mix gays with straights in a balanced manner.