Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I cry foul! You're not thinking at all, not if you're carrying on a 21 page conversation with Alma.
Says the guy posting in the 21 page thread!
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't ask, don't tell, don't persue
Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow
Says the guy posting in the 21 page thread!
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Well, no. He'd totally kick your ***!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That's a nice try
I'm not really using you as the arbiter for how poor your arguments are.
When you want to try again, let me know
As much as I like to play "cat and mouse" with you, I enjoy proving you wrong more. So, I'll concede to your offer. If I'm not mistaken, the question is how is "legitimate discriminate" a meaningful term.
I'm pointing out that as a society, we accept various forms of discrimination based on every human aspect that we say we shouldn't discriminate against. Your whole argument is "It's no longer discrimination if it's protected by law". The legality of the action doesn't change the definition of the action.
If you don't understand my claim (not, if you agree), then please tell me. If you understand my claim, but disagree, then please tell me why.
Vageta wrote:
So, because skin color is a determining factor in some casting decisions it's ok to discriminate in the military due to one's sexual orientation?
Do you believe that racial quotas and minority scholarships are racial discrimination?
Eske,
Here is another example of readers not paying attention and/or purposely making stupid arguments to debate.
I originally said the following:
"TODAY in our society, we have laws, rules and regulations that openly and blatantly discriminate against sex, skin color, height, weight, age, nationality, national background, family background, religious preference, etc. and yet you all somehow believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE for sexuality to be part of that list? What makes sexuality so special that the aforesaid can be discriminated against in the "Land of the Free", but not sexuality?"
Omega Vageta later said
"I don't think there're any logical reasons to discriminate do to sexual orientation or skin color. You do though, so how about some examples & the logic behind it? "
I then countered with the question
"Do you or do you not think it's a logical discrimination to cast an actor/actress of a certain skin color to portray a person of the said skin color?"
This initiated all of the talk of casting and discrimination. After proving him wrong, he says..
"So, because skin color is a determining factor in some casting decisions it's ok to discriminate in the military due to one's sexual orientation?"
So, please Eske, tell me the logic used in that conclusion. After I said at least 4 times now that one form of discrimination doesn't automatically justify another form of discrimination, please tell me his thought process.
Here is another example of readers not paying attention and/or purposely making stupid arguments to debate.
I originally said the following:
"TODAY in our society, we have laws, rules and regulations that openly and blatantly discriminate against sex, skin color, height, weight, age, nationality, national background, family background, religious preference, etc. and yet you all somehow believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE for sexuality to be part of that list? What makes sexuality so special that the aforesaid can be discriminated against in the "Land of the Free", but not sexuality?"
Omega Vageta later said
"I don't think there're any logical reasons to discriminate do to sexual orientation or skin color. You do though, so how about some examples & the logic behind it? "
I then countered with the question
"Do you or do you not think it's a logical discrimination to cast an actor/actress of a certain skin color to portray a person of the said skin color?"
This initiated all of the talk of casting and discrimination. After proving him wrong, he says..
"So, because skin color is a determining factor in some casting decisions it's ok to discriminate in the military due to one's sexual orientation?"
So, please Eske, tell me the logic used in that conclusion. After I said at least 4 times now that one form of discrimination doesn't automatically justify another form of discrimination, please tell me his thought process.
Feel free to go back and look up the actual term used before "proving me wrong" 
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Almalieque wrote:
After I said at least 4 times now that one form of discrimination doesn't automatically justify another form of discrimination, please tell me his thought process.
And yet, you say that you don't understand why sexuality isn't on the list of acceptable reasons to discriminate. You even put it in this very post.
Alma wrote:
"TODAY in our society, we have laws, rules and regulations that openly and blatantly discriminate against sex, skin color, height, weight, age, nationality, national background, family background, religious preference, etc. and yet you all somehow believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE for sexuality to be part of that list? What makes sexuality so special that the aforesaid can be discriminated against in the "Land of the Free", but not sexuality?"
To EVERYONE, that reads as, "If it's ok to discriminate against someone because of skin color, why not sexuality?" And even after you've "stated at least four times that one form of discrimination doesn't automatically justify another form," you are still asserting that, if sex, skin color, height, weight, age, nationality, national background, family background religious preference, etc. are reasons to discriminate, then sexuality should be a part of that list.
This is why people ask you, over and over, if you actually read what you type, and if you even know what your own argument is.
Jophiel wrote:
Feel free to go back and look up the actual term used before "proving me wrong"
Wait, so you understand my claim, but disagree with it?
Belkira wrote:
To EVERYONE, that reads as, "If it's ok to discriminate against someone because of skin color, why not sexuality?" And even after you've "stated at least four times that one form of discrimination doesn't automatically justify another form," you are still asserting that, if sex, skin color, height, weight, age, nationality, national background, family background religious preference, etc. are reasons to discriminate, then sexuality should be a part of that list.
This is why people ask you, over and over, if you actually read what you type, and if you even know what your own argument is.
This is why people ask you, over and over, if you actually read what you type, and if you even know what your own argument is.
Because that statement says that we have laws, rules and regulations. That is in a general sense, as in, there exist a form of discrimination against every human trait. That does not mean if there exist a scenario where it's ok to discriminate against age, then it's ok to discriminate against sex, skin color, height, etc.
Those are two completely different concepts. Under your logic, if there exist ONE accepted form of discrimination, then it's ok to discriminate against everyone for anything all of the time.
That my friend, is a stupid interpretation. If you honestly believe that is more logical than "there does not exist any human trait that isn't immune to some form of discrimination, what makes you think sexuality is?", then once again, that's a stupid interpretation of the reader.
Edited, Oct 30th 2011 10:13pm by Almalieque
Almalieque wrote:
Because that statement says that we have laws, rules and regulations. That is in a general sense, as in, there exist a form of discrimination against every human trait. That does not mean if there exist a scenario where it's ok to discriminate against age, then it's ok to discriminate against sex, skin color, height, etc.
Those are two completely different concepts. Under your logic, if there exist ONE accepted form of discrimination, then it's ok to discriminate against everyone for anything all of the time.
That my friend, is a stupid interpretation. If you honestly believe that is more logical than "there does not exist any human trait that isn't immune to some form of discrimination, what makes you think sexuality is?", then once again, that's a stupid interpretation of the reader.
Edited, Oct 30th 2011 10:13pm by Almalieque
Those are two completely different concepts. Under your logic, if there exist ONE accepted form of discrimination, then it's ok to discriminate against everyone for anything all of the time.
That my friend, is a stupid interpretation. If you honestly believe that is more logical than "there does not exist any human trait that isn't immune to some form of discrimination, what makes you think sexuality is?", then once again, that's a stupid interpretation of the reader.
Edited, Oct 30th 2011 10:13pm by Almalieque
So, once again, everyone just misunderstands you, it's not a problem with you at all.
Riiiight.
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Feel free to go back and look up the actual term used before "proving me wrong"
Are you having a dog read for you or something?
You "defended" the wrong term. It wasn't "legitimate discrimination". Go find out what you're talking about before wasting keystrokes on it.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Feel free to go back and look up the actual term used before "proving me wrong"
Are you having a dog read for you or something?
Can you believe that Alma is given actual responsibilities in the real world? He's borderline mentally retarded. I'm not even trying to be derogatory.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Because that statement says that we have laws, rules and regulations. That is in a general sense, as in, there exist a form of discrimination against every human trait. That does not mean if there exist a scenario where it's ok to discriminate against age, then it's ok to discriminate against sex, skin color, height, etc.
Those are two completely different concepts. Under your logic, if there exist ONE accepted form of discrimination, then it's ok to discriminate against everyone for anything all of the time.
That my friend, is a stupid interpretation. If you honestly believe that is more logical than "there does not exist any human trait that isn't immune to some form of discrimination, what makes you think sexuality is?", then once again, that's a stupid interpretation of the reader.
Edited, Oct 30th 2011 10:13pm by Almalieque
Those are two completely different concepts. Under your logic, if there exist ONE accepted form of discrimination, then it's ok to discriminate against everyone for anything all of the time.
That my friend, is a stupid interpretation. If you honestly believe that is more logical than "there does not exist any human trait that isn't immune to some form of discrimination, what makes you think sexuality is?", then once again, that's a stupid interpretation of the reader.
Edited, Oct 30th 2011 10:13pm by Almalieque
So, once again, everyone just misunderstands you, it's not a problem with you at all.
Riiiight.
Even if my statements were somehow misleading, your assumption made absolutely no sense. There is no logical reason to have that conclusion, especially given the context of this argument. We were specifically talking about various forms of discrimination within the military, we didn't start talking about casting (and other forms of discrimination) until 18(?) pages later.
If I were you and that was the only assumption that I could infer, I would have said "I don't understand your point. I think that I'm missing something, can you please restate it". I would not assume that you support an all boys school discriminating against Mexicans because they discriminate against girls.
The last few pages have been about "logical discrimination" and how in some cases it's logical to discriminate against certain human traits that might not be logical in other scenarios. That concept alone completely contradicts the thought that if there exist one form of discrimination, then all discrimination is ok.
You honestly have no leg to stand on for such foolishness.
Almalieque wrote:
You honestly have no leg to stand on for such foolishness.
I lol'ed.
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Feel free to go back and look up the actual term used before "proving me wrong"
Are you having a dog read for you or something?
You "defended" the wrong term. It wasn't "legitimate discrimination". Go find out what you're talking about before wasting keystrokes on it.
That was kind of the reason why I stated the original statement in question for clarification. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Just because you're talking about something different doesn't make ME wrong. If you have no problem with "legitimate discrimination", then I no longer have any beef with you.
All I did was ctrl+c and ctrl+v from the two posts that you ignored.
I'm not going to go back and try to guess what you're talking about. You can either tell me or drop it. Your choice.
Or I can continue to mock your shotgun approach which has led to you no longer even knowing what you were trying to claim before and inability to follow the posts backward. My choice!
Great job "proving me wrong" without even knowing which of your phrases you were "proving me wrong" about!
Great job "proving me wrong" without even knowing which of your phrases you were "proving me wrong" about!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Because that statement says that we have laws, rules and regulations. That is in a general sense, as in, there exist a form of discrimination against every human trait. That does not mean if there exist a scenario where it's ok to discriminate against age, then it's ok to discriminate against sex, skin color, height, etc.
Those are two completely different concepts. Under your logic, if there exist ONE accepted form of discrimination, then it's ok to discriminate against everyone for anything all of the time.
That my friend, is a stupid interpretation. If you honestly believe that is more logical than "there does not exist any human trait that isn't immune to some form of discrimination, what makes you think sexuality is?", then once again, that's a stupid interpretation of the reader.
Edited, Oct 30th 2011 10:13pm by Almalieque
Those are two completely different concepts. Under your logic, if there exist ONE accepted form of discrimination, then it's ok to discriminate against everyone for anything all of the time.
That my friend, is a stupid interpretation. If you honestly believe that is more logical than "there does not exist any human trait that isn't immune to some form of discrimination, what makes you think sexuality is?", then once again, that's a stupid interpretation of the reader.
Edited, Oct 30th 2011 10:13pm by Almalieque
So, once again, everyone just misunderstands you, it's not a problem with you at all.
Riiiight.
Even if my statements were somehow misleading, your assumption made absolutely no sense.
Everyone else is right, you are wrong. Deal with it. And then get help.
Really Alma, your major problem here is choosing to continuously type "legitimate discrimination" or for that matter just "discrimination", when what you mean is "selection".
For instance: I need to hire someone to work at a rape crisis center. I have two equally quallified candidates. One is a lady. The other is a 6'6" 300lb bald, scarred, tatooed Neo-****. Not picking the scary **** dude isn't "legitimate discrimination", it's simply a matter of selecting the person most appropriate for the job. Just like I would select a black man to play Martin Luther King in a movie or the armed services select persons under a specific height to be fighter pilots.
Stop pretending that using the word "discriminate" (meaning to select between things) means the same thing as (choosing or rejecting based on bigotry). It was almost cute the 1st time you did it. Now it just makes you look extremely stupid.
And really, if you can't state your case clearly in three sentences, please resign your commission.
For instance: I need to hire someone to work at a rape crisis center. I have two equally quallified candidates. One is a lady. The other is a 6'6" 300lb bald, scarred, tatooed Neo-****. Not picking the scary **** dude isn't "legitimate discrimination", it's simply a matter of selecting the person most appropriate for the job. Just like I would select a black man to play Martin Luther King in a movie or the armed services select persons under a specific height to be fighter pilots.
Stop pretending that using the word "discriminate" (meaning to select between things) means the same thing as (choosing or rejecting based on bigotry). It was almost cute the 1st time you did it. Now it just makes you look extremely stupid.
And really, if you can't state your case clearly in three sentences, please resign your commission.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Jophiel wrote:
Or I can continue to mock your shotgun approach which has led to you no longer even knowing what you were trying to claim before and inability to follow the posts backward. My choice!
Great job "proving me wrong" without even knowing which of your phrases you were "proving me wrong" about!
Great job "proving me wrong" without even knowing which of your phrases you were "proving me wrong" about!
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
last I checked Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, shot tall small large women and men straight and ... all serve in the military. It is pretty non discriminatory the real question is (that you continually avoid) Why does Gay not fit in the list of people who can serve in the military.
Oh and btw Neil Patrick Harris plays a womanizing straight dude on a very popular evening television show. Despite the fact that he is gay Oh the discrimination involved in the acting world. The blasphemy of a Gay man acting as a straight man.....
You suck at arguing your points.
Oh and btw Neil Patrick Harris plays a womanizing straight dude on a very popular evening television show. Despite the fact that he is gay Oh the discrimination involved in the acting world. The blasphemy of a Gay man acting as a straight man.....
You suck at arguing your points.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
rdmcandie wrote:
last I checked Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, shot tall small large women and men straight and
Translation prz.
Nadenu wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
last I checked Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, shot tall small large women and men straight and
Translation prz.
All blacks, Hispanics, and Asians shoot all tall, small, and large women and men straight [in the heart].
Is he still going on about "Since we can't get rid of it all at the exact same time we might as well not even try" bullshit?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
More or less yeah. He's trying to distract from the issue as usual, but that's his core.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Well given that I answered your question numerous of times, you would have to tell me how posts 983 and 997 did NOT answer your question, else you'll just get the same answers. Mainly because that's the answer. How is that not valid? What part do you disagree with?
You failed to give a compelling reason for it to be meaningful. Absent that, there's no reason to humor the rest of your "argument". As I said, you're just randomly shotgunning stuff ("Actors! No, wait! Hooters! Wait, umm... I mean the Hooters lawsuit that failed! SSM? How about college enrollment?") so if you can't get that far, I'm not going to humor you just desperately throwing stuff at the wall.
That's a nice try, but I haven't retracted anything, so there is no "oh, wait" or "I mean".. Everything still stands as is. There is no random shot gunning of anything.
You claim that there is no legitimate racial discrimination.
I gave you an example of denying someone of a job because the color of their skin.
You countered that acting is protected, so "it's ok".
I countered with two law suits, Hooters and A&E. One lost and the other one won. They both stemmed from the same "image" argument used in casting actors/actresses.
As another example, I asked your opinion on racial quotas and or minority scholarships. You have yet answered that because I can only assume that you believe that they are racial discrimination and admitting so proves you wrong.
You claim that my argument fails, but you didn't say how. That doesn't help. Specifically tell me which part isn't right and why. OR, you can repeat my argument from posts 997 and 983. From there, I can see if you understood my argument.
Since Eske claims that I'm impossible to understand, maybe there's a 99% chance that my "poor" grammar confused you. So, restate my argument in your own words so I can better explain the areas where my poor grammar mislead you.
None of those organizations discriminate against someone's sexual orientation. Hooters discriminates for a particular image, which is something one can usually change. I'm personally not in favor of the school quotas (fixing the underlying issues should be our objective, not ignoring them) and barring certain scholarships applied to separately, we should have demographic blindness, and look at qualifications only.
Just as Planned.
@ Alma
RE: This Entire Thread
I don't understand your point. I think that I'm missing something, can you please restate it, clarifying why it is that you think it is ok to discriminate (NOT SELECT!) due to sexual orientation in any scenario, but preferably in the military.
RE: This Entire Thread
I don't understand your point. I think that I'm missing something, can you please restate it, clarifying why it is that you think it is ok to discriminate (NOT SELECT!) due to sexual orientation in any scenario, but preferably in the military.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
#1051Almalieque,
Posted: Oct 30 2011 at 11:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What's the limitation on "image". A&E tried the same thing and got sued. Didn't the same thing happen with flight attendants?
Recent Visitors: 294
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (294)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't ask, don't tell, don't persue
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC