Paddywack wrote:
Secondly, had you instead gone into depth about my invalid points, so you call them, I would have been less of a tool. If you answer as a tool, expect the response to be toolish. That is why this forum doesn't get anywhere much with people like you and Tehra responding in your short-talk. These are discussion threads, not "lol ur wrong" short response threads.
Quality, not quantity.
Paddywack wrote:
dek wrote:
They don't want your junk, they want to serve their country, stop being such a pussy.
Falsely assumed statement is false.
You almost had it there, except there wasn't anything of quality.
Paddywack wrote:
Another falsely assumed statement.
Do you know even one gay person in the military?
Do you know every gay person in the military?
Are you constantly in their brains knowing everything they think?
You cannot make a general assumption on something that has no supporting evidence to support your conjectures. Even polls are a rickety statistic.
There are many fucked up people in this world, and I would NOT be surprised if one person, who is homosexual, joined the military for the cock.
Stop assuming shit.
There is the possibility that someone joined for the cock. That possibility eliminates your general assumption until proven wrong. Either way, someone gets fucked with or without don't ask don't tell.
Usdk wrote:
the gay population is around 8%, thats 120,000 people that are affected by this ruling.
1 out of 120k (8%) is 0.00000833%. You're basing your entire argument on 1 deranged person who would risk life and limb to gobble some cock.
Azelma wrote:
"Well, you have no conceptualization of true logic...so fuck you." haha
"You have no concept of logic" would be more appropriate, since conceptualization involves the actual formation of a concept, not possession of said concepts of logic. That, and would you state "you have no concept of false logic"? Yeah, no.
Paddywack? More like parrotback.