Anyone watch Ahmadinejad's speech @ Columbia University yesterday?

[sadguy]

Originally posted by: TheNewbie

Originally posted by: sadguy

Originally posted by: michaels
I can't believe they let this ***** speak there. This bastard has people freakin stoned, hung and everything else you can imagine. And to top it off this ass is engaged in a war by proxy with us by supplying weapons and possible more to insurgents in Iraq.

Where's the proof of supplying weapons to insurgents?

He also questioned 9/11. More leaders around the world should do so.

Ehm... Osama, or whatever your real name is. What is exactly the reason that you would like to question the brutal murder of 3000 innocent Americans?

There are quite a few military leaders who have many reasons for questioning 9/11.

Also many architects and engineers.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789



Which sentence are you referring to?

the second.

I certainly do not consider his visit a recruiting program and I am certain that the decision makers at Columbia also did not consider it a recruiting visit.

I can't say 100% that some nutjob wasn't positively influenced by it. I also can't be sure that the purpose of his visit wasn't to steal pens and notebooks.

I don't pretend to be able to understand the motivations religous fanatics, but I do believe it rational to consider his visit fundamentally different than that of a ROTC program.


*edit - nesting shortened

you can consider all you wish, but i still maintain that not allowing one group on campus because of their views on homosexuality and allowing another with even more radical views about the same group isn't being consistent.

Columbia has the (right in my opinion) policy of not allowing hiring sessions on campus if the company/organization doesn't follow equal opportunity policies. The ROTC doesn't, thus is not allowed to have hiring sessions on campus.

Columbia University do invite many members of the army for speeches. They just cannot recruit.

Iran president Ahmadinejad was not on campus to recruit people.

Don't you see what's the point?

You want to recruit ------> you need to follow equal opportunity rules.
You want to speak -------> You can be just any kind of asshole.

i agree.

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
He actually said there is no homosexuality in Iran.
Hilarious. :laugh:

I think the reason he said that is because they supposedly kill off gays.

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789



Which sentence are you referring to?

the second.

I certainly do not consider his visit a recruiting program and I am certain that the decision makers at Columbia also did not consider it a recruiting visit.

I can't say 100% that some nutjob wasn't positively influenced by it. I also can't be sure that the purpose of his visit wasn't to steal pens and notebooks.

I don't pretend to be able to understand the motivations religous fanatics, but I do believe it rational to consider his visit fundamentally different than that of a ROTC program.


*edit - nesting shortened

you can consider all you wish, but i still maintain that not allowing one group on campus because of their views on homosexuality and allowing another with even more radical views about the same group isn't being consistent.

Columbia has the (right in my opinion) policy of not allowing hiring sessions on campus if the company/organization doesn't follow equal opportunity policies. The ROTC doesn't, thus is not allowed to have hiring sessions on campus.

Columbia University do invite many members of the army for speeches. They just cannot recruit.

Iran president Ahmadinejad was not on campus to recruit people.

Don't you see what's the point?

You want to recruit ------> you need to follow equal opportunity rules.
You want to speak -------> You can be just any kind of asshole.

Agreed. Seems like people want to mindlessly bash a "liberal" private university.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789



Which sentence are you referring to?

the second.

I certainly do not consider his visit a recruiting program and I am certain that the decision makers at Columbia also did not consider it a recruiting visit.

I can't say 100% that some nutjob wasn't positively influenced by it. I also can't be sure that the purpose of his visit wasn't to steal pens and notebooks.

I don't pretend to be able to understand the motivations religous fanatics, but I do believe it rational to consider his visit fundamentally different than that of a ROTC program.


*edit - nesting shortened

you can consider all you wish, but i still maintain that not allowing one group on campus because of their views on homosexuality and allowing another with even more radical views about the same group isn't being consistent.

Columbia has the (right in my opinion) policy of not allowing hiring sessions on campus if the company/organization doesn't follow equal opportunity policies. The ROTC doesn't, thus is not allowed to have hiring sessions on campus.

Columbia University do invite many members of the army for speeches. They just cannot recruit.

Iran president Ahmadinejad was not on campus to recruit people.

Don't you see what's the point?

You want to recruit ------> you need to follow equal opportunity rules.
You want to speak -------> You can be just any kind of asshole.

A precise and simple explaination, one has to wonder how closed her mind is not to understand it.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789



Which sentence are you referring to?

the second.

I certainly do not consider his visit a recruiting program and I am certain that the decision makers at Columbia also did not consider it a recruiting visit.

I can't say 100% that some nutjob wasn't positively influenced by it. I also can't be sure that the purpose of his visit wasn't to steal pens and notebooks.

I don't pretend to be able to understand the motivations religous fanatics, but I do believe it rational to consider his visit fundamentally different than that of a ROTC program.


*edit - nesting shortened

you can consider all you wish, but i still maintain that not allowing one group on campus because of their views on homosexuality and allowing another with even more radical views about the same group isn't being consistent.

Columbia has the (right in my opinion) policy of not allowing hiring sessions on campus if the company/organization doesn't follow equal opportunity policies. The ROTC doesn't, thus is not allowed to have hiring sessions on campus.

Columbia University do invite many members of the army for speeches. They just cannot recruit.

Iran president Ahmadinejad was not on campus to recruit people.

Don't you see what's the point?

You want to recruit ------> you need to follow equal opportunity rules.
You want to speak -------> You can be just any kind of asshole.

A precise and simple explaination, one has to wonder how closed her mind is not to understand it.

I understand what is being said, but that doesn't totally banish the point I am trying to make.

I will go a step further with my opinion, I think using the veil of not agreeing with the policies of the military in regards to homosexual recruitment is just a cop out for Columbia's true anti-military sentiment. They have denied the ROTC a voice on campus, yet they would welcome Hitler to speak. I don't see how anyone wants to justify that.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789



Which sentence are you referring to?

the second.

I certainly do not consider his visit a recruiting program and I am certain that the decision makers at Columbia also did not consider it a recruiting visit.

I can't say 100% that some nutjob wasn't positively influenced by it. I also can't be sure that the purpose of his visit wasn't to steal pens and notebooks.

I don't pretend to be able to understand the motivations religous fanatics, but I do believe it rational to consider his visit fundamentally different than that of a ROTC program.


*edit - nesting shortened

you can consider all you wish, but i still maintain that not allowing one group on campus because of their views on homosexuality and allowing another with even more radical views about the same group isn't being consistent.

Columbia has the (right in my opinion) policy of not allowing hiring sessions on campus if the company/organization doesn't follow equal opportunity policies. The ROTC doesn't, thus is not allowed to have hiring sessions on campus.

Columbia University do invite many members of the army for speeches. They just cannot recruit.

Iran president Ahmadinejad was not on campus to recruit people.

Don't you see what's the point?

You want to recruit ------> you need to follow equal opportunity rules.
You want to speak -------> You can be just any kind of asshole.

A precise and simple explaination, one has to wonder how closed her mind is not to understand it.

I understand what is being said, but that doesn't totally banish the point I am trying to make.

I will go a step further with my opinion, I think using the veil of not agreeing with the policies of the military in regards to homosexual recruitment is just a cop out for Columbia's true anti-military sentiment. They have denied the ROTC a voice on campus, yet they would welcome Hitler to speak. I don't see how anyone wants to justify that.

they still allow military personnel to speak on campus

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789



Which sentence are you referring to?

the second.

I certainly do not consider his visit a recruiting program and I am certain that the decision makers at Columbia also did not consider it a recruiting visit.

I can't say 100% that some nutjob wasn't positively influenced by it. I also can't be sure that the purpose of his visit wasn't to steal pens and notebooks.

I don't pretend to be able to understand the motivations religous fanatics, but I do believe it rational to consider his visit fundamentally different than that of a ROTC program.


*edit - nesting shortened

you can consider all you wish, but i still maintain that not allowing one group on campus because of their views on homosexuality and allowing another with even more radical views about the same group isn't being consistent.

Columbia has the (right in my opinion) policy of not allowing hiring sessions on campus if the company/organization doesn't follow equal opportunity policies. The ROTC doesn't, thus is not allowed to have hiring sessions on campus.

Columbia University do invite many members of the army for speeches. They just cannot recruit.

Iran president Ahmadinejad was not on campus to recruit people.

Don't you see what's the point?

You want to recruit ------> you need to follow equal opportunity rules.
You want to speak -------> You can be just any kind of asshole.

A precise and simple explaination, one has to wonder how closed her mind is not to understand it.

I understand what is being said, but that doesn't totally banish the point I am trying to make.

I will go a step further with my opinion, I think using the veil of not agreeing with the policies of the military in regards to homosexual recruitment is just a cop out for Columbia's true anti-military sentiment. They have denied the ROTC a voice on campus, yet they would welcome Hitler to speak. I don't see how anyone wants to justify that.

You can think what you want you are still very wrong.

They denied ROTC an opportunity to recruit on campus because of their discriminatory hiring practices. If they allowed ROTC to recruit then they'd have to allow other companies and entities that have discriminatory practices to be able to recruit there.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789



Which sentence are you referring to?

the second.

I certainly do not consider his visit a recruiting program and I am certain that the decision makers at Columbia also did not consider it a recruiting visit.

I can't say 100% that some nutjob wasn't positively influenced by it. I also can't be sure that the purpose of his visit wasn't to steal pens and notebooks.

I don't pretend to be able to understand the motivations religous fanatics, but I do believe it rational to consider his visit fundamentally different than that of a ROTC program.


*edit - nesting shortened

you can consider all you wish, but i still maintain that not allowing one group on campus because of their views on homosexuality and allowing another with even more radical views about the same group isn't being consistent.

Columbia has the (right in my opinion) policy of not allowing hiring sessions on campus if the company/organization doesn't follow equal opportunity policies. The ROTC doesn't, thus is not allowed to have hiring sessions on campus.

Columbia University do invite many members of the army for speeches. They just cannot recruit.

Iran president Ahmadinejad was not on campus to recruit people.

Don't you see what's the point?

You want to recruit ------> you need to follow equal opportunity rules.
You want to speak -------> You can be just any kind of asshole.

A precise and simple explaination, one has to wonder how closed her mind is not to understand it.

I understand what is being said, but that doesn't totally banish the point I am trying to make.

I will go a step further with my opinion, I think using the veil of not agreeing with the policies of the military in regards to homosexual recruitment is just a cop out for Columbia's true anti-military sentiment. They have denied the ROTC a voice on campus, yet they would welcome Hitler to speak. I don't see how anyone wants to justify that.

You can think what you want you are still very wrong.

They denied ROTC an opportunity to recruit on campus because of their discriminatory hiring practices. If they allowed ROTC to recruit then they'd have to allow other companies and entities that have discriminatory practices to be able to recruit there.

Oh so they are denying their students the freedom of choice. I see. So now these students need to go to other campuses to seek out ROTC programs.

By allowing the ROTC on campus Columbia does not have to send a message to the world that it is accepting discrimination. They have the option of returning ROTC "under protest." Columbia can also, as other schools have done, establish contingency plans and financial protection for students who may be affected by current law, something it cannot currently do for students who must attend the program at other institutions.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

No, it just prohibits anyone who "demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the military. So they can join the military, but they can't ACT gay. And if they're discovered, out they go (no pun intended).

The difference between allowing them to speak and allowing them to recruit is that words are just words, but if you allow them to recruit you are allowing them to actively discriminate.

 

[yuppiejr]

Interesting, could one then argue that selecting a student for admission based factors like gender or race rater than purely the merits of their educational performance and extracurricular activities also be considered discrimination?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: moshquerade

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

No, it just prohibits anyone who "demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the military. So they can join the military, but they can't ACT gay. And if they're discovered, out they go (no pun intended).

The difference between allowing them to speak and allowing them to recruit is that words are just words, but if you allow them to recruit you are allowing them to actively discriminate.

You're wasting your time as it seems logic is beyond her grasp.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Interesting, could one then argue that selecting a student for admission based factors like gender or race rater than purely the merits of their educational performance and extracurricular activities also be considered discrimination?

They sure could, in fact they do it all the time.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: moshquerade

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

No, it just prohibits anyone who "demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the military. So they can join the military, but they can't ACT gay. And if they're discovered, out they go (no pun intended).

The difference between allowing them to speak and allowing them to recruit is that words are just words, but if you allow them to recruit you are allowing them to actively discriminate.

You're wasting your time as it seems logic is beyond her grasp.

Are you posting as yourself or as a moderator right now? I want to get that clear because if you are going to start unleashing insults towards me because you don't agree with me then I want the same liberties.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789



Which sentence are you referring to?

the second.

I certainly do not consider his visit a recruiting program and I am certain that the decision makers at Columbia also did not consider it a recruiting visit.

I can't say 100% that some nutjob wasn't positively influenced by it. I also can't be sure that the purpose of his visit wasn't to steal pens and notebooks.

I don't pretend to be able to understand the motivations religous fanatics, but I do believe it rational to consider his visit fundamentally different than that of a ROTC program.


*edit - nesting shortened

you can consider all you wish, but i still maintain that not allowing one group on campus because of their views on homosexuality and allowing another with even more radical views about the same group isn't being consistent.

Columbia has the (right in my opinion) policy of not allowing hiring sessions on campus if the company/organization doesn't follow equal opportunity policies. The ROTC doesn't, thus is not allowed to have hiring sessions on campus.

Columbia University do invite many members of the army for speeches. They just cannot recruit.

Iran president Ahmadinejad was not on campus to recruit people.

Don't you see what's the point?

You want to recruit ------> you need to follow equal opportunity rules.
You want to speak -------> You can be just any kind of asshole.

A precise and simple explaination, one has to wonder how closed her mind is not to understand it.

I understand what is being said, but that doesn't totally banish the point I am trying to make.

I will go a step further with my opinion, I think using the veil of not agreeing with the policies of the military in regards to homosexual recruitment is just a cop out for Columbia's true anti-military sentiment. They have denied the ROTC a voice on campus, yet they would welcome Hitler to speak. I don't see how anyone wants to justify that.

You can think what you want you are still very wrong.

They denied ROTC an opportunity to recruit on campus because of their discriminatory hiring practices. If they allowed ROTC to recruit then they'd have to allow other companies and entities that have discriminatory practices to be able to recruit there.

Oh so they are denying their students the freedom of choice. I see. So now these students need to go to other campuses to seek out ROTC programs.

By allowing the ROTC on campus Columbia does not have to send a message to the world that it is accepting discrimination. They have the option of returning ROTC "under protest." Columbia can also, as other schools have done, establish contingency plans and financial protection for students who may be affected by current law, something it cannot currently do for students who must attend the program at other institutions.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

Columbia is a private institution. Their students chose to go there. No one is denying students the "freedom of choice".

McDonald's does not serve steaks and they FORCE me to go to other restaurants if I want one. Boo fucking hoo.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy.

That is the most ludicrous statement I have heard this week. "Don't ask, don't tell" is not a privacy policy.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Oh so they are denying their students the freedom of choice. I see. So now these students need to go to other campuses to seek out ROTC programs.

By allowing the ROTC on campus Columbia does not have to send a message to the world that it is accepting discrimination. They have the option of returning ROTC "under protest." Columbia can also, as other schools have done, establish contingency plans and financial protection for students who may be affected by current law, something it cannot currently do for students who must attend the program at other institutions.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

Columbia is a private institution. Their students chose to go there. No one is denying students the "freedom of choice".

McDonald's does not serve steaks and they FORCE me to go to other restaurants if I want one. Boo fucking hoo.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy.

That is the most ludicrous statement I have heard this week. "Don't ask, don't tell" is not a privacy policy.

Yes, it is. You do not have to admit to your sexual orientation. You keep your sexuality private, as it should be.


edit: cut down on nested quotes

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Oh so they are denying their students the freedom of choice. I see. So now these students need to go to other campuses to seek out ROTC programs.

By allowing the ROTC on campus Columbia does not have to send a message to the world that it is accepting discrimination. They have the option of returning ROTC "under protest." Columbia can also, as other schools have done, establish contingency plans and financial protection for students who may be affected by current law, something it cannot currently do for students who must attend the program at other institutions.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

Columbia is a private institution. Their students chose to go there. No one is denying students the "freedom of choice".

McDonald's does not serve steaks and they FORCE me to go to other restaurants if I want one. Boo fucking hoo.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy.

That is the most ludicrous statement I have heard this week. "Don't ask, don't tell" is not a privacy policy.

Yes, it is. You do not have to admit to your sexual orientation. You keep your sexuality private, as it should be.


edit: cut down on nested quotes

[edit]Following that line of logic,[/edit] they should kick anyone who admits to one sexual orientation or the other out of the army.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Oh so they are denying their students the freedom of choice. I see. So now these students need to go to other campuses to seek out ROTC programs.

By allowing the ROTC on campus Columbia does not have to send a message to the world that it is accepting discrimination. They have the option of returning ROTC "under protest." Columbia can also, as other schools have done, establish contingency plans and financial protection for students who may be affected by current law, something it cannot currently do for students who must attend the program at other institutions.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

Columbia is a private institution. Their students chose to go there. No one is denying students the "freedom of choice".

McDonald's does not serve steaks and they FORCE me to go to other restaurants if I want one. Boo fucking hoo.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy.

That is the most ludicrous statement I have heard this week. "Don't ask, don't tell" is not a privacy policy.

Yes, it is. You do not have to admit to your sexual orientation. You keep your sexuality private, as it should be.


edit: cut down on nested quotes

Then they should kick anyone who admits to one sexual orientation or the other out of the army.

Fine, but no one needs to admit to anything. It's not like on other job apps you see a line which says, "heterosexual, homosexual, choose one".

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Interesting, could one then argue that selecting a student for admission based factors like gender or race rater than purely the merits of their educational performance and extracurricular activities also be considered discrimination?

The difference is, Columbia is not hiring you, it's accepting you to an educational program. Their fellowships program, on the other hand, is equal opportunity employment (even for foreign students).

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Oh so they are denying their students the freedom of choice. I see. So now these students need to go to other campuses to seek out ROTC programs.

By allowing the ROTC on campus Columbia does not have to send a message to the world that it is accepting discrimination. They have the option of returning ROTC "under protest." Columbia can also, as other schools have done, establish contingency plans and financial protection for students who may be affected by current law, something it cannot currently do for students who must attend the program at other institutions.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

Columbia is a private institution. Their students chose to go there. No one is denying students the "freedom of choice".

McDonald's does not serve steaks and they FORCE me to go to other restaurants if I want one. Boo fucking hoo.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy.

That is the most ludicrous statement I have heard this week. "Don't ask, don't tell" is not a privacy policy.

Yes, it is. You do not have to admit to your sexual orientation. You keep your sexuality private, as it should be.


edit: cut down on nested quotes

Then they should kick anyone who admits to one sexual orientation or the other out of the army.

Fine, but no one needs to admit to anything. It's not like on other job apps you see a line which says, "heterosexual, homosexual, choose one".

Did you just say fine to kicking anyone who admits to one sexual orientation out of the army? There go all the married folk! Or anyone who dates! Hetero's "admit" or display their sexual preference 100's of times every day.

It's not like you see a statement on your job app that states you will be fired if they find out you're homosexual either.

Regardless, Columbia has the right as a private instution to make their own decisions about who is allowed to recruit on their campus.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: moshquerade

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

No, it just prohibits anyone who "demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the military. So they can join the military, but they can't ACT gay. And if they're discovered, out they go (no pun intended).

The difference between allowing them to speak and allowing them to recruit is that words are just words, but if you allow them to recruit you are allowing them to actively discriminate.

You're wasting your time as it seems logic is beyond her grasp.

Are you posting as yourself or as a moderator right now? I want to get that clear because if you are going to start unleashing insults towards me because you don't agree with me then I want the same liberties.

I'm posting as myself, to ask that I'm not is Mod Baiting and is against the rules. However I will overlook it as I know how paraniod you are.

All I'm saying is that I truly believe that your alleged moral indignation over this matter to be disengenious at best.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789




Did you just say fine to kicking anyone who admits to one sexual orientation out of the army? There go all the married folk! Or anyone who dates! Hetero's "admit" or display their sexual preference 100's of times every day.

It's not like you see a statement on your job app that states you will be fired if they find out you're homosexual either.

Regardless, Columbia has the right as a private instution to make their own decisions about who is allowed to recruit on their campus.

Sure they have that right, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Turin39789




Did you just say fine to kicking anyone who admits to one sexual orientation out of the army? There go all the married folk! Or anyone who dates! Hetero's "admit" or display their sexual preference 100's of times every day.

It's not like you see a statement on your job app that states you will be fired if they find out you're homosexual either.

Regardless, Columbia has the right as a private instution to make their own decisions about who is allowed to recruit on their campus.

Sure they have that right, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

Their having the right does not make it right. But it is.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: moshquerade

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

No, it just prohibits anyone who "demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the military. So they can join the military, but they can't ACT gay. And if they're discovered, out they go (no pun intended).

The difference between allowing them to speak and allowing them to recruit is that words are just words, but if you allow them to recruit you are allowing them to actively discriminate.

You're wasting your time as it seems logic is beyond her grasp.

Are you posting as yourself or as a moderator right now? I want to get that clear because if you are going to start unleashing insults towards me because you don't agree with me then I want the same liberties.

I'm posting as myself, to ask that I'm not is Mod Baiting and is against the rules. However I will overlook it as I know how paraniod you are.

All I'm saying is that I truly believe that your alleged moral indignation over this matter to be disengenious at best.

You don't agree with me, that's fine. How boring it would be if *everyone* agreed with everyone, but you have this PROBLEM of crossing the line of civility whereby if someone takes a different view than you they must be a fool, close minded, have no concept of logic, etc.

Wrong. Yours is NOT the only right view.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: moshquerade

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the ROTC has to do with the practical concerns of privacy. It doesn't disallow homosexuals from joining the military.

No, it just prohibits anyone who "demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the military. So they can join the military, but they can't ACT gay. And if they're discovered, out they go (no pun intended).

The difference between allowing them to speak and allowing them to recruit is that words are just words, but if you allow them to recruit you are allowing them to actively discriminate.

You're wasting your time as it seems logic is beyond her grasp.

Are you posting as yourself or as a moderator right now? I want to get that clear because if you are going to start unleashing insults towards me because you don't agree with me then I want the same liberties.

I'm posting as myself, to ask that I'm not is Mod Baiting and is against the rules. However I will overlook it as I know how paraniod you are.

All I'm saying is that I truly believe that your alleged moral indignation over this matter to be disengenious at best.

You don't agree with me, that's fine. How boring it would be if *everyone* agreed with everyone, but you have this PROBLEM of crossing the line of civility whereby if someone takes a different view than you they must be a fool, close minded, have no concept of logic, etc.

Wrong. Yours is NOT the only right view.

In this case it is:thumbsup: