Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

Please quote me where.

Do you or do you not believe that racial quotas and minority scholarships are racial discrimination?

All you did was say why racial discrimination is necessary. No where did you quote my statement and say no it wasn't. You came back said that it isn't racism, but you never said that it wasn't racial discrimination.

I believe it is necessary due to "white privilege" & "selection", as opposed to discrimination. It is neither unjust nor prejudice to select a minority for a minority scholarship until such a time that minorities have an equal opportunity to attend college to begin with.

Read above. Didn't you say "no" above and now you're saying "yes"? Please explain the difference in "most cases" and "affirmative action". When is "affirmative action" affirmative action and how are the actions different when they aren't "affirmative action"?

It's specifically spelled out in post 206 with details. It's your job to counter which specific detail that you disagree with.

Well, if you exclude what was argued and the result of the appeal, i.e. homosexual couples not receiving the same benefits as heterosexual couples, then you would be absolutely correct. Given the fact that isn't the case, then you're the one in denial.

You're right that they are separate issues, that's my point. There's nothing preventing the military from giving benefits to homosexual couples. They choose not to. The two are not connected.

I did..

Actions speak louder than words. Why aren't SSM legal in all 50 states? I mean if the majority of the nation feels the way you say, then why are SSM proponents still FIGHTING battles?

I just wiki'd SSM and looked at the polls. The percentages varied by month. We had this argument on this already on these "polls". Unless you believe it's possible for the entire nation to shift views on a particular subject without any major incidents, then the results are purely random. Actions speak louder than words.

You see the protesters on the news? That's action.

If only someone would actually read post 206.

You can't have it both ways.. Just a few pages ago, people were posting polls that most of Christians and Republicans support "homosexual rights". Yet, every time these "rights" aren't supported, Christians and Republicans are the ones to blame.

Do you or do you not believe that ra

I ask again, where did I ask you if it were racist/racism? I don't believe it is racist or racism either, so why would I want you to believe that it is?



I didn't ask if you thought it was necessary, just, right or fair.



So now there's a difference between "outright" discrimination and discrimination? I'm pointing out to you that you're just making up stuff. There is no difference between hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person due to skin color and hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person due to skin color.

Unless you can somehow differentiate the two, the two are the same. Your entire argument on how it was "necessary" was due to "white privilege" but you have yet responded on your thought on when "privileged" white people gain from affirmative action.



Obviously it does or I wouldn't be able to quote it to counter stupid claims like "all changes must be done all at once". Everything is clear. If you think something is not clear, then quote exactly what you think is not clear and then I can clarify. Since you refuse to do so, then you're the coward.

Even when you quoted my post, you gave counters to it WHICH MEANS YOU UNDERSTOOD MY CLAIM. You not agreeing to my point and you not understanding it are two different things. Unless you were countering stuff that you didn't understand (which is stupid), then you understood my post, you just didn't agree.



Nice try. You argued that the only reason for DADT was due to the lack of acceptance of homosexuality and now that everyone loves gays, it was removed. I countered to say that isn't the case. Just because homosexuality is popular in the media, doesn't mean that everyone equally view homosexuality.

I argued that the military hasn't changed their views on homosexuals or they would have changed the rule on their own accord, not be forced to do so. I argued that their reasons for DADT were of the same reasons that I posted on post 206, which had nothing to do with bigotry. I concluded that the evidence is in how the repeal was done. It still supported all of the concerns that I listed on post 206 and part of that is the fact that homosexual couples do not receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

You countered that the only reason that was the case was because of DOMA.

I countered to say that isn't the case, because you receiving extra living allowance is based on having a dependent, not a spouse. Your dependent could be a spouse, child, care giver, etc. If the military wanted, they could define "life time partner" as a "dependent". They don't for one of the very same reasons why the homosexual policy was instated in the first place.

Didn't you just say that most of Christian Conservatives were for homosexual rights? You see now why your cites are stupid. I told you that I wiki'ed SSM

[quote=Omega]So you've got no evidence to dispute my claims & can't do so? I guess I win then.

Scary Scandinavian Menopause?

It is scary.

I can't get any clearer and more concise than "Post 206". Jus' sayin

There are two ways that this can be interpreted.

1. That Alma thinks that he's being clear and concise by referring to a muddled, long-winded post concisely.
2. That Alma thinks that post 206 is clear and concise.

You once said that you only have this problem on this forum, that people in real life don't seem to have as much issue understanding you. I know what's going on. The same thing that goes on when my slightly senile neighbor tries to tell me something. I smile, nod, say "Boy, you got that right!" and walk away.

On a barely-related note, that reminded me of a time back in grad school, when a classmate of mine was venting to me about a fight that she was having about desk space. Apparently, she had straight-up annexed a neighboring girl's desk without asking, and told me as much without so much as a hint of regret.

After railing on the other girl for a bit, she said something like "I CAN'T HELP IT IF I NEED TWO DESKS! I WORK HARD AND I HAVE TO TAKE UP MORE SPACE! THAT'S NOT MY FAULT! SHE SHOULD BE UNDERSTANDING! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!"

She was looking at me pretty expectantly for confirmation, and all I thought was that she sounded like she was being a huge *****. Not knowing what to do, I just said "Yeah, that just sounds like a bad situation for everybody!" and quickly ran off.

She probably took that as agreement, somehow.

Edited, Nov 8th 2011 5:01pm by Eske

You're falsely accusing me of using fictional terminology. I gave you a very simple task. You said that selecting a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to race in affirmative action is somehow different than selecting a less qualified person over a more qualified person simply due to race in other scenarios. I asked you to explain how they are different. If you can't, because they aren't different, then either man up and admit it or politely STFU.

As I stated before (and you conveniently overlooked), everyone (including white people) benefit from affirmative action. So, if your stance on affirmative action relies on the unjust done towards ethnic minorities, then what's your stance on when it benefits white people? Do you support affirmative action then? How can you support widening the racial gap if you're fighting to close it?

I can't get any clearer and more concise than "Post 206". Jus' sayin'.
If you think for a second that post 206 was founded on "comfort", then you have just admitted to not reading and/or comprehending my post. Either that or you're just over generalizing "comfort" in attempt to weaken my argument.

Once again, "comfort" is a huge category. My argument was that the discrimination was specifically done due to sexuality, the same exact reason for the separation of men and women. So, unless you're against the segregation of women and men, then your "comfort" attack is invalid.

I didn't for a minute take my source as something that I would defend. For almost any argument, I can google a counter study. My point is to show you how polls don't override actions. No matter how many polls you pull up, actions speak louder than words. If the military really wanted to show homosexuals extra love, then the military would have done this on their own accord.

It's not a coincidence that a decision on a national level that involves the President favors homosexuals, yet the lower court systems in the states seem to not favor homosexuals.

You can pout all you want, but the problem is civilians wanting to equalize military life with civilian life. You simply don't have the same rights and there is method to the madness and that is all explained in post 206.