- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,338
- Reaction score
- 412
- Location
- West Coast USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
lets cut through the crap-your position is based on the fact that you have issues with rich people apparently
am I wrong?
No. Though I do have issue with a punk ass bitch suggesting that "brilliant" people don't (or, better yet, shouldn't) do military work and that the stupid "unemployable" remainder should be left for the "grunt work."
grunt work should be relegated to those unable to do higher functioning tasks
Which it is currently and which it would be under a draft. It is not as though the draft would immediately assign who goes to Afghanistan and who calculates satellite trajectories.
The bigger danger to society, in my opinion, would be one segment of society bleeding and the other buying their way out, and the long term effects such a policy could have. If that were to be the case, it would be better that we just keep a volunteer force that allows those who have the means and no desire to serve to do as they will.
Also, I am sorry I should not have insulted you. It was a knee jerk reaction.
There are many things which are programmed into us, like the fear of that which is different and the fear of risk. Part of being a person is pushing yourself beyond your programming, otherwise you're nothing better than an animal.
With all the new regulations, procedures and enforcement required to implement your new rules and requirements, we'll need another Department just to take care this.
But that's ok, it's worth it, right? We'll spend millions just so crybaby men will feel better because women need to sign up for something that's never gonna happen anyway.
How about we just get rid of selective service registration instead?
Wives, daughters, sisters, nieces, aunts, and all other manner of female kin and acquaintances. When we, as a society, sink to the point where we are willing to send our women off as cannon fodder, then I think we need to acknowledge that we've reached the point where there is nothing left of our society that is worth fighting for.
I'm illustrating a point.
You are asking that a useless government activity be expanded. Have you thought about this?
Just get rid of it all together.
If they have any children, draft them also.
Why should crumb-snatchers get a free ride?
The New York Times reports:
Thirty-six crew members of the supply ship Acadia were pregnant and had to be transferred during the ship's deployment to the Persian Gulf, naval officials say. . .
The ship, whose 1,250 crew members included 360 women, returned to her home port here on Friday. . . .
Naval policy is to transfer women immediately to shore duty if they become pregnant.
Who here is good at doing complex math calculations?
RiverDad said:The New York Times reports:
Thirty-six crew members of the supply ship Acadia were pregnant and had to be transferred during the ship's deployment to the Persian Gulf, naval officials say. . .
The ship, whose 1,250 crew members included 360 women, returned to her home port here on Friday. . . .
Naval policy is to transfer women immediately to shore duty if they become pregnant.
Who here is good at doing complex math calculations?
360 men and 360 women had sex onboard?
No one should. Keep war and the military where it belongs - 20th century
Eliminate (as in, kill all members of) all military forces in the world, and you would have another war somewhere within a year.As long as there's military there will be war*
I think our society is deeply in error where it tries to treat men and woman as interchangeable, and to deny the essential, fundamental differences between them.
The idea of women being subject to the same obligation as men with regard to military service, and the idea of women serving in combat, is surely one of the most blatant areas in which this error can be seen.
It is the natural role and duty of men to protect women, and to fight violently, where necessary, to do so. This is programmed into us by instinct. Similarly, wherever else the use of violence is called for, this falls under the natural role and duty of men, and not of women. To hold that women should bear the same obligation as men in this regard, is to deny the basic natural differences between men and women.
In a practical sense, if you put men and women in a situation where they are fighting side by side against a common enemy, it is going to be the natural instinct of every real man who is of any value as a man, to protect the women around him at the expense of the cause for which he is supposed to be fighting. Aside form the obvious reduction in effectiveness as a military force, one has to consider the implications of training men and women for this situation, to override their natural instincts, when they are later returned to civilian society. What can be the impact, in a civilian society, of men who have been trained to override their natural instinct to protect women? What of women who have been trained to engage in violence outside of their inherent nature? Neither of these is going to be good for the society into which these former soldiers are returned.
I would very much prefer that women not be in the military at all, and where they are in the military, that they be kept as far as possible from actual combat.
Why is that some conservatives, instead of trying to somewhat slow the rate of progress for the sake of balance and stability, actually seek to try to turn the clock back to the 19th century? It is absurd, and you are absurd, to think in such Victorian terms about men and women's roles, and what is 'natural.'
There are things that were true about men and women, and how they differ, back in the nineteenth century, or any time before, that remain equally true today, in the twenty-first century, and which will remain true for as long as Mankind exists. I find your remarks about “…try[ing] to turn the clock back to the 19th century” and “Victorian terms about men and women's roles” to be meaningless and absurd.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?