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 - πΊπππππ
πͺππππ
Pages: 1 ... 435436437 438439 ... 1001
13081
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:42:23 AM »
I will not rest until Scott Walker is thrown out of office and shamed publicly for the rest of his life.
13082
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:40:54 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.
It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.
And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.
Pseudo? Literally what?
This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.
Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces.
Doesn't matter. The military isn't some existential void where the tenets of morality cease to apply.
People are making a moral issue into one of tangible military effectiveness. Why should we sacrifice the inherent good of doing the right thing for fleetingly making our ridiculously powerful military more powerful?
Why is lowering the physical standards for female combatants the right thing to do? As I said earlier, militaries aren't equal opportunity employers.
Holy shit, the standards shouldn't be lowered. I've only said that a dozen times ITT, and I've never advocated lowering standards whatsoever.
Then what are you screaming about? I usually just skim over most people's posts.
If a woman does everything a man has to do to enlist in combat roles, she should be in a combat role.
13083
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:39:35 AM »
Give it time and trans men will be next. I can already feel it, even though we're largely ignored inside and outside of the community as it is.
I don't get why you think this. Most day to day people don't really care if a girl wants to be a guy, but flip it around and everyone loses their minds.
13084
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:37:29 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.
It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.
And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.
Pseudo? Literally what?
This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.
Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces.
Doesn't matter. The military isn't some existential void where the tenets of morality cease to apply.
People are making a moral issue into one of tangible military effectiveness. Why should we sacrifice the inherent good of doing the right thing for fleetingly making our ridiculously powerful military more powerful?
Why is lowering the physical standards for female combatants the right thing to do? As I said earlier, militaries aren't equal opportunity employers.
Holy shit, the standards shouldn't be lowered. I've only said that a dozen times ITT, and I've never advocated lowering standards whatsoever.
13085
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:36:11 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".
You asked what ancient civilization my moral system comes from. 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. If you took a step back, you'd see how the fact that we're born without choosing our demographic, and the fact that every demographic should be treated equally under the law, are inseperable.
13086
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:32:32 AM »
If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.
It's not a legal privilege, it's a specific job the the government specifically is looking for men to fill.
Kind of like if a tv show is looking for a female to fill a host position.
Not at all. Government jobs are legal privelges.
Game shows are private enterprises.
What makes them so different? Both are looking for people to fill a role to get the best results they can.
One is a direct representation of America, the legal system, and the government. What happens reflects on the nation as a whole. The other is a representation of whoever the individual or individuals are that control the business. An individual can be sexist and in favor of discrimination, that just makes him a shitty individual. And before you freak out, I'm not saying hiring a man over a woman is sexist. I'm saying a policy that specifically prohibits women from joining is sexist.
13087
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:29:35 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.
It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.
And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.
Pseudo? Literally what?
This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.
Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces.
Doesn't matter. The military isn't some existential void where the tenets of morality cease to apply. People are making a moral issue into one of tangible military effectiveness. Why should we sacrifice the inherent good of doing the right thing for fleetingly making our ridiculously powerful military more powerful?
13088
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:25:46 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.
Um, duh? But I'm not the one who bases my morality on those evil civilizations.
13089
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:24:59 AM »
If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.
It's not a legal privilege, it's a specific job the the government specifically is looking for men to fill.
Kind of like if a tv show is looking for a female to fill a host position.
Not at all. Government jobs are legal privelges. Game shows are private enterprises.
13090
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:21:55 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.
It's certainly not the most integral cornerstone of a prosperous society.
I'd rather be morally right than prosperous.
13091
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:20:52 AM »
Something like trans men have to use women's bathrooms and vice versa
13092
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:19:35 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.
It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.
And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.
Pseudo? Literally what? This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.
13093
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:18:35 AM »
Everyone was morally bankrupt in ancient history.
LMAO HOLY SHIT
IS THIS LIKE THE SECULAR MORAL VERSION OF LUTHERANISM
....what Romans had slaves. Aztecs sacrificed people. Early European empires pillaged, burned, raped, and executed people who didn't follow their will.
13094
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:13:43 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.
Oh my god do you really get your moral viewpoint from historical civilizations? Everyone was morally bankrupt in ancient history. It can be somewhat explained by the crueler and dangerous world back then, but it's certainly not justifiable.
13095
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:06:27 AM »
you can't ban people who are already ghosts
13096
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:05:34 AM »
You know I never understood why CamCamm on Bungie had a problem with you. You're actually a pretty chill guy.
probably because I thought she was really cute and harassed her because of it bungie was fun because I just acted like a total dick all the time, I don't blame people who dislike me based on that
13097
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:01:44 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.
13098
« on: April 04, 2016, 01:48:09 AM »
What have I become...I've started swiping men on Tinder.
I'm honestly confused what's going on with Jive tonight
he's copy/pasted this like five times
He's mocking Roman, who said that earlier today.
ohhh, that makes sense
13099
« on: April 04, 2016, 01:45:42 AM »
Only in this day and age is being called normal an insult...
13100
« on: April 04, 2016, 01:45:13 AM »
What have I become...I've started swiping men on Tinder.
I'm honestly confused what's going on with Jive tonight he's copy/pasted this like five times
13101
« on: April 04, 2016, 01:43:18 AM »
I also want to abandon Jester because I didn't think of it.
I liked Azula Is Life good name
13102
« on: April 04, 2016, 01:33:04 AM »
Yellow, orange, and light green are equally repugnant.
13103
« on: April 04, 2016, 01:22:37 AM »
I mean the alias doesn't really matter
I'm on a bunch of different forums and use different usernames
13104
« on: April 04, 2016, 01:20:53 AM »
don't shut down my discussion please 
13105
« on: April 04, 2016, 01:15:55 AM »
And yeah, it is just about women existing, because anyone who is born DESERVES every single right and privelege under the law that any other person who is born has.
Men are allowed to serve in combat, so by default women are, too. Your camp is the one making the imposition by enforcing a ban.
13106
« on: April 04, 2016, 01:10:00 AM »
Evidence from the IDF suggests male soldiers get frenzied when women soldiers are injured, and can act in ways which risk the mission objective.
Then that's the fault of the soldier for losing his wits, not the fault of the woman for existing.
You're being incredibly disingenuous. Serving a combat role willingly with this information (and, by extension, a government allowing women to do so) is extremely different from merely "existing", and I know you know that perfectly well. Stop using rhetoric to try and bolster your points.
Secondly, yes, that's a fantastic idea. Let's blame the soldier in a middle of a combat scenario for acting on the basest instincts he probably has, all while we could've foreseen it happening and prevented it if only hippies like you didn't insist on allowing that situation to occur in the fucking first place. Soldiers in combat situations, even with training, are already highly unreliable--anybody in a combat situation would be, compared to being in a non-combat situation. There's absolutely no reason to add to this burden in the name of equality.
And fuck, it's not even about some neocon fetish for having a strong military. At the end of the day, it could mean more dead soldiers, more trauma and more difficult situations for serving personnel for absolutely no good reason. And it would especially mean more dead women soldiers; terrorists aren't dumb, and they no doubt know how consistently targeting women would harm morale.
Soldiers sign up to preserve our rights and freedoms. They put their lives at risk for the good of the country. If soldiers die for equality, they die for one of the most important values humanity an achieve. If the basest instinct you have is defying your superiors to save a single female soldier, then despite how bad this may sound, you're a bad soldier. And someone already brought up morale for whatever fucking reason, so I'll just quote myself: Morale reasons?
How would that unit being wiped out be any different than any other unit being wiped out?
13107
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:56:53 AM »
YOU HAVE TO BE HATED OR YOU HAVE NO PLACE HERE
13108
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:56:13 AM »
What happened cunts?
As always, some people over reacting over a slow night. You'd think after nearly two years people would learn that this place is never going to be as active as a place like Bungie.
more like me making a joke don't be so sensitive
13109
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:54:55 AM »
Evidence from the IDF suggests male soldiers get frenzied when women soldiers are injured, and can act in ways which risk the mission objective.
Then that's the fault of the soldier for losing his wits, not the fault of the woman for existing.
13110
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:53:51 AM »
"I support discrimination because it makes our military stronger"
Literally fuck off.
. . . Wha-
What?
Security is the area in which discrimination is most justifiable.
Maybe if we were some small country who had threats all around us and were at risk of being invaded. Then we could do something immoral, to survive and work on our morality as a nation later. But America can afford to lose a little unit cohesion in the name of doing the right thing. Our military is ridiculously large and wealthy, the few women who are able to pass the enlistment requirements and serve on the frontlines won't make it all screech to a halt.
Pages: 1 ... 435436437 438439 ... 1001
|
Show Posts