The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[kaz]

I just had to point out how funny your accusing anyone on any topic of committing a "logical fallacy" and telling them they are "arguing from ignorance" is. And it's too bad you didn't understand Atlas Shrugged, it's a great book. Though it's depressing because Ayn Rand so accurately describes you.

In other words, you don't like my conclusions but have nothing of substance with which to respond

Oh so close, actually I don't care what your conclusions are because you have nothing of substance with which to support them with. I give you half a point for a rim shot though.

so you're going to try to attack me on a personal level, in hopes that you'll get some traction. That's also a logical fallacy.

It's called an ad hominem attack, which yes is a logical fallacy except that I don't apply them to your arguments.

I understood Atlas Shrugged perfectly. The only thing Rand describes is a fantasy land. But that's neither here nor there.

You think it's a fantasy land because you don't understand it.

 

[kaz]

The entire question in this thread of who does or does not get HIV has centered on whether allowing gay people in the military poses a meaningful risk of spreading HIV to others

So when you argued it's not a gay disease, that did support his contention that straights have every reason to be worried about it. Straights in the military even moreso since they are going to be exposed to gay blood. You had a nice little bit of support for the yota man, didn't you?

 

[slukasiewski]

I just had to point out how funny your accusing anyone on any topic of committing a "logical fallacy" and telling them they are "arguing from ignorance" is. And it's too bad you didn't understand Atlas Shrugged, it's a great book. Though it's depressing because Ayn Rand so accurately describes you.

In other words, you don't like my conclusions but have nothing of substance with which to respond, so you're going to try to attack me on a personal level, in hopes that you'll get some traction. That's also a logical fallacy.

I understood Atlas Shrugged perfectly. The only thing Rand describes is a fantasy land. But that's neither here nor there.

Your conclusions are idiotic.

 

[kaz]

I just had to point out how funny your accusing anyone on any topic of committing a "logical fallacy" and telling them they are "arguing from ignorance" is. And it's too bad you didn't understand Atlas Shrugged, it's a great book. Though it's depressing because Ayn Rand so accurately describes you.

In other words, you don't like my conclusions but have nothing of substance with which to respond, so you're going to try to attack me on a personal level, in hopes that you'll get some traction. That's also a logical fallacy.

I understood Atlas Shrugged perfectly. The only thing Rand describes is a fantasy land. But that's neither here nor there.

Your conclusions are idiotic.

In fairness he is an idiot, what did you expect? Rubber biscuit?

 

[gekaap]

Oh so close, actually I don't care what your conclusions are because you have nothing of substance with which to support them with. I give you half a point for a rim shot though.

I have nothing of substance to support my conclusions? I've been quite clear about my arguments. One person's son is not representative of the entire US military. The military is an institution that is supposed to protect freedom. Soldiers are supposed to be ready and willing to risk life and limb to protect each other and save each other if necessary. Many gay people have served in the military admirably. HIV infects people of all sexual orientations and there is no evidence that gay people in the combat zone are more likely than straight people to be HIV positive. All the arguments about gay soldiers possibly being infected with HIV are exclusively levied against men only to the exclusion of providing any argument regarding gay women serving in the military. The kinds of relationship and sexual practices that exist within the military are not comparable to civilian populations, thus statistics from civilian populations are not applicable to the military population. Those same practices create at least as great a risk of straight male soldiers contracting HIV than gay soldiers, if not moreso. The leaders of our military have gone on record as saying that repealing DADT won't harm our military.

All those things being considered, I conclude that there is no meaningful concern among military personnel regarding the repeal of DADT outside of prejudice and bias, and that there is no meaningful harm that it will cause. If you consider that to be absent of substance, then you're either completely incapable of rational thought, or you're simply too determined to not see it.

It's called an ad hominem attack, which yes is a logical fallacy except that I don't apply them to your arguments.

That makes alot of sense. Because YOU don't think that it should be a logical fallacy if directed at my arguments, it's no longer a logical fallacy.

You think it's a fantasy land because you don't understand it.

So anyone who disagrees with you simply doesn't understand. That's incredibly egocentric and dogmatic. But like I said, it's also neither here nor there for this discussion.

 

[gekaap]

So when you argued it's not a gay disease, that did support his contention that straights have every reason to be worried about it. Straights in the military even moreso since they are going to be exposed to gay blood. You had a nice little bit of support for the yota man, didn't you?

How about you sit down and catch your breath, because your brain seems to be oxygen deprived. You're starting to ramble incoherently now.

 

[slukasiewski]

Correct me if I'm wrong (with a link please) but I don't believe that there are any questions any more on enlistment documents requiring someone to disclose their sexual orientation.

If they were not asked, they didn't have to tell, and they didn't have to lie. I believe that was the whole premise of - well - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".



>>>>

I never asserted it asks your orientation - I recall it asked if you have ever engaged in a gay act.

It used to. But hasn't for years and years. Now there are no questions on orientation or sex acts, so if they aren't asked they didn't like. That's what DADT was all about.



>>>>

Correct. I agree it used to and doesn't anymore. I understand that. I am merely saying when it WAS on the form (used to be) and a person LIED to get in (i.e. lying about committing a gay act), entered the service fraudulantly.

That's a felony, if convicted...

 

[gekaap]

Correct. I agree it used to and doesn't anymore. I understand that. I am merely saying when it WAS on the form (used to be) and a person LIED to get in (i.e. lying about committing a gay act), entered the service fraudulantly.

That's a felony, if convicted...

No, that's not at all what you were saying, and even if it were it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It has no bearing on gay people in the military today being supposedly untrustworthy.

 

[slukasiewski]

So when you argued it's not a gay disease, that did support his contention that straights have every reason to be worried about it. Straights in the military even moreso since they are going to be exposed to gay blood. You had a nice little bit of support for the yota man, didn't you?

How about you sit down and catch your breath, because your brain seems to be oxygen deprived. You're starting to ramble incoherently now.

It's hard to take you seriously with that picture of Ronald MacDonald in your avatar.
Why don't you change it up to something closer to your real personality. I'm sure you can't find a "Bumbling Idiot" avatar somewhere on the Internets...

 

[gekaap]

It's hard to take you seriously with that picture of Ronald MacDonald in your avatar.
Why don't you change it up to something closer to your real personality. I'm sure you can't find a "Bumbling Idiot" avatar somewhere on the Internets...

Yet more attempts at ad hominems. You are unable to address the substance of my arguments, thus you explicitly call into question myself as a person, on so superficial a basis as my avatar. As if your avatar is just so impressive anyway.

 

[slukasiewski]

Correct. I agree it used to and doesn't anymore. I understand that. I am merely saying when it WAS on the form (used to be) and a person LIED to get in (i.e. lying about committing a gay act), entered the service fraudulantly.

That's a felony, if convicted...

No, that's not at all what you were saying, and even if it were it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It has no bearing on gay people in the military today being supposedly untrustworthy.

Obviously, in addition to being an idiot, you can't read English?
You need it dumbed down further or posted in your native tongue, Arabic?

 

[kaz]

Oh so close, actually I don't care what your conclusions are because you have nothing of substance with which to support them with. I give you half a point for a rim shot though.

I have nothing of substance to support my conclusions? I've been quite clear about my arguments. One person's son is not representative of the entire US military. The military is an institution that is supposed to protect freedom. Soldiers are supposed to be ready and willing to risk life and limb to protect each other and save each other if necessary. Many gay people have served in the military admirably. HIV infects people of all sexual orientations and there is no evidence that gay people in the combat zone are more likely than straight people to be HIV positive. All the arguments about gay soldiers possibly being infected with HIV are exclusively levied against men only to the exclusion of providing any argument regarding gay women serving in the military. The kinds of relationship and sexual practices that exist within the military are not comparable to civilian populations, thus statistics from civilian populations are not applicable to the military population. Those same practices create at least as great a risk of straight male soldiers contracting HIV than gay soldiers, if not moreso. The leaders of our military have gone on record as saying that repealing DADT won't harm our military.

All those things being considered, I conclude that there is no meaningful concern among military personnel regarding the repeal of DADT outside of prejudice and bias, and that there is no meaningful harm that it will cause. If you consider that to be absent of substance, then you're either completely incapable of rational thought, or you're simply too determined to not see it.

You've offered no argument at all to support why you want them to tell other then you want them to and you don't see any reason they shouldn't.

It's called an ad hominem attack, which yes is a logical fallacy except that I don't apply them to your arguments.

That makes alot of sense. Because YOU don't think that it should be a logical fallacy if directed at my arguments, it's no longer a logical fallacy.

So you're saying that logical fallacies don't need to be connected to logical arguments? Interesting argument that is.

You think it's a fantasy land because you don't understand it.

So anyone who disagrees with you simply doesn't understand. That's incredibly egocentric and dogmatic. But like I said, it's also neither here nor there for this discussion.

Wow, if I say you don't understand one book, that means that anyone who disagrees with me on any topic doesn't understand. You're funny, that's why I like "debating" you

 

[slukasiewski]

It's hard to take you seriously with that picture of Ronald MacDonald in your avatar.
Why don't you change it up to something closer to your real personality. I'm sure you can't find a "Bumbling Idiot" avatar somewhere on the Internets...

Yet more attempts at ad hominems. You are unable to address the substance of my arguments, thus you explicitly call into question myself as a person, on so superficial a basis as my avatar. As if your avatar is just so impressive anyway.

Thanks. Glad you like mine.
When you changing yours up?

 

[slukasiewski]

Oh so close, actually I don't care what your conclusions are because you have nothing of substance with which to support them with. I give you half a point for a rim shot though.

I have nothing of substance to support my conclusions? I've been quite clear about my arguments. One person's son is not representative of the entire US military. The military is an institution that is supposed to protect freedom. Soldiers are supposed to be ready and willing to risk life and limb to protect each other and save each other if necessary. Many gay people have served in the military admirably. HIV infects people of all sexual orientations and there is no evidence that gay people in the combat zone are more likely than straight people to be HIV positive. All the arguments about gay soldiers possibly being infected with HIV are exclusively levied against men only to the exclusion of providing any argument regarding gay women serving in the military. The kinds of relationship and sexual practices that exist within the military are not comparable to civilian populations, thus statistics from civilian populations are not applicable to the military population. Those same practices create at least as great a risk of straight male soldiers contracting HIV than gay soldiers, if not moreso. The leaders of our military have gone on record as saying that repealing DADT won't harm our military.

All those things being considered, I conclude that there is no meaningful concern among military personnel regarding the repeal of DADT outside of prejudice and bias, and that there is no meaningful harm that it will cause. If you consider that to be absent of substance, then you're either completely incapable of rational thought, or you're simply too determined to not see it.

You've offered no argument at all to support why you want them to tell other then you want them to and you don't see any reason they shouldn't.


So you're saying that logical fallacies don't need to be connected to logical arguments? Interesting argument that is.

You think it's a fantasy land because you don't understand it.

So anyone who disagrees with you simply doesn't understand. That's incredibly egocentric and dogmatic. But like I said, it's also neither here nor there for this discussion.

Wow, if I say you don't understand one book, that means that anyone who disagrees with me on any topic doesn't understand. You're funny, that's why I like "debating" you

He seems quite dense.

 

[gekaap]

You've offered no argument at all to support why you want them to tell other then you want them to and you don't see any reason they shouldn't.

I never said that I "want them to tell." To the contrary, I have already explained that you are arguing a false dilemma. The repeal of DADT is not equal to a legislative mandate that gay people take out billboards or otherwise declare their orientation. The phrase "don't ask, don't tell" is a misnomer, because what it actually did was prohibit people from BEING gay in the military. So much as kissing one's S/O of 20 years in the privacy of one's own home was grounds for discharge under the DADT policy. Visiting one's parents and telling them you were gay was grounds for discharge. By repealing DADT, Congress is allowing gay people to serve in the military without having to tell anyone anything. It leaves the person's orientation as a private matter, whereas under DADT it was a government matter.

So you're saying that logical fallacies don't need to be connected to logical arguments? Interesting argument that is.

Uh, logical fallacies AREN'T connected to logical arguments. They are ILLOGICAL arguments.

Wow, if I say you don't understand one book, that means that anyone who disagrees with me on any topic doesn't understand. You're funny, that's why I like "debating" you

That is in fact what you've said. You said that if I don't agree with you regarding Atlas Shrugged, I must not understand it. It's your own words, don't blame me for them.

 

[kaz]

So when you argued it's not a gay disease, that did support his contention that straights have every reason to be worried about it. Straights in the military even moreso since they are going to be exposed to gay blood. You had a nice little bit of support for the yota man, didn't you?

How about you sit down and catch your breath, because your brain seems to be oxygen deprived. You're starting to ramble incoherently now.

You said it's not a gay disease, straights need to be just as worried about it. So if I'm an Islamic terrorist I target the guy in the Humvee with the lace curtains or with the neatest backpack or who's wearing pink socks and I make sure to splatter lots of blood.

 

[gekaap]

You said it's not a gay disease, straights need to be just as worried about it. So if I'm an Islamic terrorist I target the guy in the Humvee with the lace curtains or with the neatest backpack or who's wearing pink socks and I make sure to splatter lots of blood.

AND STILL you have no evidence to back up your allegation that a gay soldier in a combat zone is more likely to be HIV positive than a straight soldier.

 

[kaz]

Wow, if I say you don't understand one book, that means that anyone who disagrees with me on any topic doesn't understand. You're funny, that's why I like "debating" you

That is in fact what you've said. You said that if I don't agree with you regarding Atlas Shrugged, I must not understand it. It's your own words, don't blame me for them.

You say you have substance, so let's focus on this. I said you don't understand Atlas Shrugged. How does that lead to the conclusion anyone who disagrees with me on any topic does so because they don't understand? This is typical of how you argue.

 

[kaz]

You said it's not a gay disease, straights need to be just as worried about it. So if I'm an Islamic terrorist I target the guy in the Humvee with the lace curtains or with the neatest backpack or who's wearing pink socks and I make sure to splatter lots of blood.

AND STILL you have no evidence to back up your allegation that a gay soldier in a combat zone is more likely to be HIV positive than a straight soldier.

Gays are 2% of the population and 66% of all HIV cases. That is actually "evidence." What is your evidence that soldiers are somehow subject to different rates of HIV then the general population?

 

[gekaap]

You say you have substance, so let's focus on this. I said you don't understand Atlas Shrugged. How does that lead to the conclusion anyone who disagrees with me on any topic does so because they don't understand? This is typical of how you argue.

WHAT DOES ATLAS SHRUGGED HAVE TO DO WITH GAYS IN THE MILITARY?!?!?

You want to talk about how I argue, and you keep bringing up this completely irrelevant topic?