Emory889 353 Report post Posted May 31, 2011 Someone has never heard of 2nd degree murder...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BMP 424 Report post Posted May 31, 2011 If all that mattered was intention, Trey would be one funny guy. . . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Secretly Space Jesus 670 Report post Posted May 31, 2011 Someone has never heard of 2nd degree murder...... *******BEGIN TRANSMISSION******* Lord Xenu is evidently confused about Teegeeackian law practices. Xenu was under the impression that 2nd degree murder was intentional, but not premeditated, and Manslaughter was unintentional. Is that incorrect? *******END TRANSMISSION******* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cactus 83 Report post Posted May 31, 2011 You can't see a difference between a gay man in assless chaps in a homosexual parade and a man mentioning that he has a boyfriend? You are the one that used the word "spouting" as if a openly homosexual male can't serve in the military without turning into a real life version of Big Gay Al. Like I said before, MOST heterosexual people in the military are no kidding guilty of "spouting off" about their sexual preferences. If the military is able to function with them talking about their sexual preferences then a woman saying that she prefers women to men should also be acceptable. If "spouting" seemed harsh to you then I'm sorry because that's not what I wanted to convey. I wouldn't mind if straights were not able to talk about their sexuality in the military either. It doesn't matter what your justification for the discrimination is, it's still discrimination! Discrimination is wrong, plain and simple. There isn't another job in this country in which an employer can deny a job to someone based off of sexual orientation. The whole, "it may make my other employees feel uncomfotable." defense would get you laughed right out of court. The current policy is unconstitutional, period. Never said I agree with the policy, but I just don't see another viable option. I think at this stage would do more harm than good, its just a simple matter of opinion. I expect nothing less of them. It's my job to hold my subordinates to the standards set by the government/military leadership. If I hear one of my troops using the term ******; I will deal with them in the same manner that I would if they used n*****. I expect them to be professional. I'm not necessarily "ok" with a lot of situations that is presented to me in the military. That's completely irrelevant because my job is to do what I'm told not what I want. Than why can homosexuals not fall under the same criteria? Also you didn't answer my question about the dormitories, do you think women and men should share the same ones? Why should straight men and openly gay soldiers be housed together? *******BEGIN TRANSMISSION******* You never answered Xenu's earlier question: Do you think South Asians would have been wrong to find it offensive if he'd used the word "Gook" instead of ******? Or Middle-Easterners if he'd called him a towel-head? If it is obvious that there was 0 intent that he was referring to those cultural groups, and there is no horrendous background behind the word, then I don't see why they should be offended, I wouldn't go as far as to say they're "wrong" about anything though. Even a less extreme example, "I didn't mean to forget your birthday, I was extremely busy this week." would at least warrant guilt, an apology, and a promise to never let it happen again. If it makes someone feel badly, you shouldn't do that. It's that simple. Too bad the offended party here had NOTHING to do with the situation at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Secretly Space Jesus 670 Report post Posted May 31, 2011 Too bad the offended party here had NOTHING to do with the situation at all. *******BEGIN TRANSMISSION******* Would you be offended if someone raped and murdered your mother, since it doesn't directly involve you? As for the point you made to Emory about DADT, let Xenu ask you a question: If Xenu were to impersonate a Teegeeackian, and start a business in your America, but stated implicitly that he refused to hire anyone who was not a white, Protestant male, do you believe the inevitable discrimination suit would be justified? If yes, then why should the military be exempt? If no, what about that scenario makes it acceptable in your eyes? *******END TRANSMISSION******* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cactus 83 Report post Posted May 31, 2011 *******BEGIN TRANSMISSION******* Would you be offended if someone raped and murdered your mother, since it doesn't directly involve you? Yeah because that has NO connection with me at all and is directly comparable to seeing the word fa**ot mouthed on television for a split second when it had no meaning of homosexual behind it. :svgsad: If Xenu were to impersonate a Teegeeackian, and start a business in your America, but stated implicitly that he refused to hire anyone who was not a white, Protestant male, do you believe the inevitable discrimination suit would be justified? If yes, then why should the military be exempt? If no, what about that scenario makes it acceptable in your eyes? *******END TRANSMISSION******* No one is saying homosexuals shouldn't be in the military, of course they should be. What is your guys stance on women in combat units? That is downright discrimination is it not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ML6 520 Report post Posted May 31, 2011 You must be trolling if you're seriously still arguing that the word ****** has no relation to homosexuality. I can't believe I'm being trolled right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cactus 83 Report post Posted May 31, 2011 You must be trolling if you're seriously still arguing that the word ****** has no relation to homosexuality. I can't believe I'm being trolled right now. Never said that, I said in the particular situation in which Kobe and Noah said it had no reference to homosexuality, unless you think it does? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Emory889 353 Report post Posted May 31, 2011 Yeah because that has NO connection with me at all and is directly comparable to seeing the word fa**ot mouthed on television for a split second when it had no meaning of homosexual behind it. :svgsad: No one is saying homosexuals shouldn't be in the military, of course they should be. What is your guys stance on women in combat units? That is downright discrimination is it not? Yeah, you're ok with them serving as long as they pretend they aren't gay...... To answer your question: in order to separate homosexual and straight personnel, the military would have to go out of their way to identify who is homosexual and who isn't. Not only is that unfeasable but it also would be a major invasion of personal privacy. No one should be required to state their religious preference any more than they should be required to hide it. Furthermore, it would require 4 separate dormitories, for straight women, lesbians, straight men and gay men. That is a big waste of taxpayer dollars. Women do serve in combat in certain circumstances. Jessica Lynch wasn't a military accountant. The only jobs that they can't get in the military is to serve in elite special operation regiments. That's because they are unable to perform the physical standards the job requires. It's no more disrimination than the NBA not signing me to a contract. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Secretly Space Jesus 670 Report post Posted May 31, 2011 *******BEGIN TRANSMISSION******* Yeah because that has NO connection with me at all and is directly comparable to seeing the word fa**ot mouthed on television for a split second when it had no meaning of homosexual behind it. :svgsad: A slur for homosexuals ALWAYS has meaning towards homosexuals behind it, you ignorant sub-creature. That's the entire point. And of course the rape and murder of your mother would affect you even if you weren't directly involved, just like the use of a slur against homosexuals always affects homosexuals, even if the men involved with the slur were both straight. In the name of the Galactic Federation, Lord Xenu cannot believe you could be this ignorant in the defense of obvious bigotry. No one is saying homosexuals shouldn't be in the military, of course they should be. No, you're just saying homosexuals should only be allowed in the military if they pretend they aren't homosexuals. What is your guys stance on women in combat units? That is downright discrimination is it not? Lord Xenu believes that female Teegeeackians are just as capable of killing other Teegeeackians as male Teegeeackians are, and that the arguments against allowing women in combat are either misogynistic nonsense, the kind of heavy-handed metaphors that deserve to be ridiculed, or both. But Xenu doesn't understand why you chose to deflect in such an obvious manner. Xenu also can't help but notice that you are seemingly in no hurry to put Xenu's experiment into practice. *******END TRANSMISSION******* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Emory889 353 Report post Posted May 31, 2011 *******BEGIN TRANSMISSION******* Lord Xenu is evidently confused about Teegeeackian law practices. Xenu was under the impression that 2nd degree murder was intentional, but not premeditated, and Manslaughter was unintentional. Is that incorrect? *******END TRANSMISSION******* You are correct my all-powerful leader. I meant manslaughter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Secretly Space Jesus 670 Report post Posted May 31, 2011 You are correct my all-powerful leader. I meant manslaughter. *******BEGIN TRANSMISSION******* Feel no remorse, man-animal. Lord Xenu is plenty aware of how common mistakes are on Teegeeack. After all, one cannot spell "manslaughter" without laughter! *******END TRANSMISSION******* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
