This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ
Pages: 1 ... 515253 5455 ... 256
1561
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:45:13 AM »
Your values are based on a conception justice that is itself based on your values?
1562
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:42:45 AM »
It's not arrogance whatsoever, I'm just as sure of it as you are of yours. Just because you get your morals from a book written 2,000 years and I get mine from logic doesn't mean that antiquity give yours more legitimacy. I've never argued that antiquity gives anything legitimacy. Rather, I'm arguing that your logos is shit and you think it is unassailable because you were brought up in it, just like the supposedly morally bankrupt peoples you insult. If you took a step back, you'd see how the fact that we're born without choosing our demographic We're born without choosing most of our demographics, yes. Really though, most of them are arbitrary. and the fact that every demographic should be treated equally under the law, are inseperable.
I have seen nothing to demonstrate that this "should" is a fact. Please explain to me how you get your "ought" (all individuals and groups deserve equal treatment) from the factual "is" (one cannot choose the circumstances of his birth).
1563
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:29:49 AM »
I don't think anyone here actually does. Maybe Kenny. I'm a Christian, so my moral system is based on that. The point is that you are wrapped up in the supposed righteousness of an arbitrary and relatively young moral system. Your arrogance in flaunting it is ridiculous. I doubt you've ever even taken the time to seriously ask yourself on what basis rights exist, how you get from "You are born a certain way so things are obviously out of your hands" to "that means people have a right to equal treatment and freedoms".
1564
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:24:53 AM »
Romans had slaves. Aztecs sacrificed people. Early European empires pillaged, burned, raped, and executed people who didn't follow their will.
And all of these things were perfectly acceptable in the moral systems they were brought up in. Just like they are completely unacceptable in the moral system you have been raised in, which you are adamant in defending and for some reason refuse to question for even a moment.
1565
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:22:36 AM »
I haven't read it, but based on what I've heard around my very leftist campus (so you should assume I'm hearing a demonized version) -It is now illegal to make anti-discrimination laws in the state of NC -It is illegal to use a bathroom that does not correspond to your biological sex The latter is completely retarded and a waste of legislative energy, the former I am unsure about, but sympathetic to. There's a ton of butthurt going on here, basically "b-but what if someone doesn't want to sell to black people or gays, that's unconstitutional" and "But Door, you have gay friends. What if they were denied a job for being gay? Wouldn't that make you sad?  ". As if A) they cared about the constitution before and B) the notion of freedom of association escapes them. There's also this really weird delusion surfacing that people somehow have a right to employment.
1566
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:15:22 AM »
Everyone was morally bankrupt in ancient history.
LMAO HOLY SHIT IS THIS LIKE THE SECULAR MORAL VERSION OF LUTHERANISM
1567
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:13:07 AM »
I just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.
Based on what?
This certainly wasn't something that the more developed classical societies considered important. Or the antique civilizations. Or medieval. Or Renaissance. Really, nobody felt that way until the self-righteous Enlightenment writers showed up with their revisionist history and ideological violence.
Someone got into the Dark Enlightenment didn't they?
Don't know what that is but it sounds edgy. I'm just a dirty classicist and I'm sick of the self-fellating behavior of the whigs.
1568
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:09:19 AM »
I just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.
Based on what? This certainly wasn't something that the more developed classical societies considered important. Or the antique civilizations. Or medieval. Or Renaissance. Really, nobody felt that way until the self-righteous Enlightenment writers showed up with their revisionist history and ideological violence.
1569
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:07:04 AM »
Elder scrolls has something similar, the Aldmeri versions of character names become X-El
Pelinal is Pelin-El, there is Auri-El, etc.
Haven't looked into the deep end of TES lore in a long time, but it would probably be up your alley. Michael Kirkbride's inspiration from vedic and ancient religion is interesting.
1570
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:05:01 AM »
Why are the coolest stories in the canon separate from the Bible.
I didn't even know about Uriel until a few weeks ago.
I was just a moment ago looking into the Gospel of Nicodemus.
1571
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:39:11 AM »
Would it help if I clarified that I am referring to segregation in a purely military context? Obviously if segregation is universal, it will never go away.
But morale and unit cohesion is important. It would be ridiculous to mix freedmen with white southerners in the US army in the year 1880, there would be too much to go wrong. By 1915 you can blur the lines. By 1940 actively work toward integration. Full integration as the civil rights movement gets into full swing.
Yeah I understood what you were talking about. In fact when I heard it, I thought of the all black units they had (led by a white commander) in WW2. That's why I honestly disagree with it. I just fundamentally think segregating units is something that stops progress that needs to be made. The whole "wait for things to settle down" thing just seems silly to me. You'd be training with them for months on end. The unit cohesion is built there if you ask me.
I understand the examples you're making, and they're good ones, but I disagree with them.
I suppose it's just a difference of priorities then. I am very concerned about risk-avoidance in a fighting setting, which bleeds into that thought process.
1572
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:27:57 AM »
There is no fucking consensus.
Climate change deniers will tell you the same thing.
1573
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:27:10 AM »
Provided enough women could meet the male standards, how do you feel about the idea of all-female combat units? This would avoid the issues inherent in mixed units.
Isn't that just segregation though?
Segregation that may be necessary. The fact of the matter is that men behave differently around women. Our heads are wired differently. Segregation based on ethnicity might have been required at first due to cultural and ethnic tensions, but could eventually be phased out based on changes in the relationships between different groups. Men and women are first socioculturally, then biologically compelled to behave differently around one another, and there's no getting around the latter.
I see. I disagree on the ethnicity bit 100%, but I just wanted to see where you were coming from.
Would it help if I clarified that I am referring to segregation in a purely military context? Obviously if segregation is universal, it will never go away. But morale and unit cohesion is important. It would be ridiculous to mix freedmen with white southerners in the US army in the year 1880, there would be too much to go wrong. By 1915 you can blur the lines. By 1940 actively work toward integration. Full integration as the civil rights movement gets into full swing.
1574
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:23:26 AM »
Provided enough women could meet the male standards, how do you feel about the idea of all-female combat units? This would avoid the issues inherent in mixed units.
Isn't that just segregation though?
Segregation that may be necessary. The fact of the matter is that men behave differently around women. Our heads are wired differently. Segregation based on ethnicity might have been required at first due to cultural and ethnic tensions, but could eventually be phased out based on changes in the relationships between different groups. Men and women are first socioculturally, then biologically compelled to behave differently around one another, and there's no getting around the latter.
Lmao that's such bullshit
If you have an explanation as to why the psychological consensus that men and women are driven by certain learned behaviors and instincts is wrong, please enlighten me.
1575
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:20:17 AM »
Provided enough women could meet the male standards, how do you feel about the idea of all-female combat units? This would avoid the issues inherent in mixed units.
Isn't that just segregation though?
Segregation that may be necessary. The fact of the matter is that men behave differently around women. Our heads are wired differently. Segregation based on ethnicity might have been required at first due to cultural and ethnic tensions, but could eventually be phased out based on changes in the relationships between different groups. Men and women are first socioculturally, then biologically compelled to behave differently around one another, and there's no getting around the latter.
1576
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:09:14 AM »
Over time, the resistant frogs would produce more resistant frogs, which would then proceed to have offspring with other more resistant frogs which would result in even more resistant frogs. Yes. You'd also need a diverse gene pool.
Raises some serious ethical questions, though.
God I wish I was in middle school as a student so I could do this experiment as my science project.
The experiment would likely take decades before any data would show tangibly higher resistance rates.
Maybe something that reproduces and dies faster? Bacteria?
1577
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:07:32 AM »
Provided enough women could meet the male standards, how do you feel about the idea of all-female combat units? This would avoid the issues inherent in mixed units.
1578
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:04:36 AM »
Our military could be cut in half and we'd still be fine as a nation. The only thing our military size does is allow us to parade around the "merica #1 army!" figure.
Our military is the reason our nation is the power it is. The United States has a symbiotic relationship with western Europe and it's other trade partners. We're the muscle, they're the money. There's a reason almost nobody in NATO meets the spending standards. It isn't necessary.
1579
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:03:10 AM »
Are you still stuck in the 90s or some shit? You're born gay or straight.
Muh current year lmao
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay-and-lesbian-well-being/201105/sexual-orientation-is-it-unchangeable
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730310-100-sexuality-is-fluid-its-time-to-get-past-born-this-way/
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/07/24/not-born-this-way-genes-suggest-sexual-orientation-fluid-not-fixed-trait/
Identarian sexuality is merely the result of an attempt to harness and politicize sexuality as a subversive tool.
Sexuality was not understood as rigid and unchanging until very recently.
Are you suggesting that sexuality is a choice? I don't think you are, but if so, you've lost me.
Not so much that "you can choose to be gay", no. More that looking at sexuality as "You are attracted or X or you are attracted to Y, or possibly X and Y, and this does not change" is silly. I didn't know before that modern research backed it up, but I started to think this way looking at material for my Classical civilization courses. Ancient perceptions of sexuality were quite different from modern ones. There was no such thing as a "gay" person in Rome. If you wanted some man tail it wasn't really different from lady tail, the concern was about whether one was giving or receiving. Really, the idea of homosexuality or bisexuality as an identity, something you WERE rather than DID, came about as a result of the homosexual subculture that developed in major cities in the 19th century evolving into a homosexual lobby.
1580
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:52:59 PM »
But if you're going to pull the "our noble soldiers cant concentrate on killing the enemy when theres boobies around them" card, then you can fuck right off.
You haven't explained why that's wrong, though. Just that you don't like the argument.
1581
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:51:48 PM »
1582
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:43:18 PM »
They obviously do exist, or else there wouldn't need to be a bar on women serving in combat roles in the first place. If literally no woman could pass the same requirements that men do, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. But obviously some can, and those women have every right to serve on the frontlines.
That's not a right, though. You've said you don't support changing tests or standards, so I'm not sure what you're even arguing here.
Oh my god. This is not hard. You have the RIGHT to not be discriminated against by the government. I don't support changing tests, I support the upholding of the current tests. If a woman and a man have identical marks on their sheets, passed the same tests, can carry the same amount of weight, and only the man is allowed to serve in combat, that's discrimination.
There is more to the requirements of combat than meeting physical test standards. This is pretty well-understood.
1583
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:40:07 PM »
There seems to be at least one, probably more misunderstandings here, but I'm not sure where they popped up.
1584
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:38:25 PM »
>sexuality
>fixed
identarians leave.
1585
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:35:07 PM »
I'm not appealing to the law, I'm saying that in a moral society, no one can be treated differently under the law.
I've already explained where that right comes from ad nauseum. No one can choose how they're born, which means everyone born in a society has the same legal rights and priveleges as anyone else born in that society.
That's fucking stupid though. What do varying birth conditions have to do with inherent rights? You said earlier that the mentally disabled don't have the right to serve. What if I'm born without arms? Do I have the right to be a police officer because I didn't choose to be born without arms?
1586
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:31:31 PM »
They obviously do exist, or else there wouldn't need to be a bar on women serving in combat roles in the first place. If literally no woman could pass the same requirements that men do, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. But obviously some can, and those women have every right to serve on the frontlines.
Also WHAT? They obviously do exist, or else there wouldn't need to be a bar on women serving in combat roles in the first place This does not make sense. Do you think women being noncombatants is some kind of millennia-old conspiracy to keep the fairer sex down because "fuck women" or something? If literally no woman could pass the same requirements that men do, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. Based on what logic? But obviously some can, It's really not obvious at all, considering we haven't seen these women yet.
1587
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:28:32 PM »
Banning women from combat roles is one of the many civil rights violations the government is freely allowed to commit because of enablers like you.
On WHAT basis is service in the military, let alone combat roles a civil right?
If you're going to let one demographic do something under the law, you HAVE to let every other demographic do the same, or else you're being discriminatory. It's a civil right to not be discriminated against on account of your gender, race, sexuality, ethnicity, creed or religion. I think the last two should be removed, but I don't care that much about that.
Don't appeal to the law, you were just complaining about the government Illuminati alien body snatchers trying to steal muh rights. I don't care what some paper says, where do you think this right comes from?
1588
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:26:02 PM »
Oh shit, that 2nd gif. Light armor making a comeback? 
1589
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:18:40 PM »
Banning women from combat roles is one of the many civil rights violations the government is freely allowed to commit because of enablers like you.
On WHAT basis is service in the military, let alone combat roles a civil right?
1590
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:15:06 PM »
Lmao, do you actually believe America is legitimately at risk of being invaded anytime in the next century? The story is actually about Britain, but there is a general trend in warfare that the more prepared force comes out on top. Your mindset is exactly what the government wants it to be. Keep the people scared, keep them dependent, and they won't say a word when their civil rights slowly get stripped away.
Oh lord, not The Man! How awful it would be to be like The Man! Now I see! Banning women from combat roles is the first step to a real life 1984! Of course!
Pages: 1 ... 515253 5455 ... 256
|
Show Posts