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 ... 436437438 439440 ... 1001
13111
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:46:47 AM »
No, I see what you mean now.
13112
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:31:30 AM »
There is no fucking consensus.
Climate change deniers will tell you the same thing.
JFK conspiracy deniers will tell you the same thing. Oh wow, I guess it turns out saying "there's no consensus" has no bearing on whether or not your argument is right.
13113
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:29:26 AM »
>non-vegans will never realize how utterly sick in the head they are
>caring about things beyond the intrinsic self
You've been spooked my friend.
even Das realizes that nihilism is dogshit
Nihilism =/= hedonism
Nihilists believe nothing matters, hedonists believe the self matters.
obviously
no one's a full-on nihilist, except for trees--hedonism is the logical follow-up to nihilism
but it's basically still nihilism--you're just conceding that, even though nothing matters, you still feel pleasant sensations, so there's no reason for you not to take advantage of that
Then I don't see how that's nihilism. Hedonists concede that pain and pleasure are what matter, not just for them, but for everyone. But since they are themselves, only their individual pain and pleasure matters to them. A nihilist would argue that neither pain nor pleasure matter at all.
13114
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:26:04 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.
There is no fucking consensus. Despite what you learned from sitcoms, men and women can be very similar, and there's not some ultimate divide that prevents true integration or any stupid shit like that.
13115
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:22:03 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
13116
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:21:22 AM »
>non-vegans will never realize how utterly sick in the head they are
>caring about things beyond the intrinsic self
You've been spooked my friend.
even Das realizes that nihilism is dogshit
Nihilism =/= hedonism Nihilists believe nothing matters, hedonists believe the self matters.
13117
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:18:34 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.
That could raise concerns that enemies would target them heavily for morale reasons.
I don't get it. Morale reasons? How would that unit being wiped out be any different than any other unit being wiped out? 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 isn't an inherently bad thing.
13118
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:15:54 AM »
Nothing
my life is as free and unburdened as the morning sun
13119
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:10:53 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.
I'm topically against it, because of the inherent prejudice the all-female units would get in terms of assignments, but it's obviously better than the current system. A better fix altogether would be if soldiers could just work with those scary females like the rest of the country does.
13120
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:08:50 AM »
You have shown nothing to dissuade the fact that organized discrimination is worse than a bad military.
lol
Is this just a tacit admission that women in infantry degrade effectiveness? If you can't figure out why that's not worth saving a few hurt feelings, then this discussion isn't worth having. The ban shouldn't exist, but the schools shouldn't change, which they have every time this comes up.
I've already said about five times ITT that I don't give a shit about unit cohesion. If that's an "admission", then so be it.
And if you think the ban should be lifted but standards shouldn't be lowered for one gender, then you're literally arguing my stance.
Give us a good reason why the standards should be lowered for female combatants.
I can't, because they shouldn't? People ITT completely missing what I'm arguing.
13121
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:05:04 AM »
You have shown nothing to dissuade the fact that organized discrimination is worse than a bad military.
lol
Is this just a tacit admission that women in infantry degrade effectiveness? If you can't figure out why that's not worth saving a few hurt feelings, then this discussion isn't worth having. The ban shouldn't exist, but the schools shouldn't change, which they have every time this comes up.
I've already said about five times ITT that I don't give a shit about unit cohesion. If that's an "admission", then so be it. And if you think the ban should be lifted but standards shouldn't be lowered for one gender, then you're literally arguing my stance.
13122
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:02:50 AM »
You have shown nothing to prove the idea that organized discrimination is better than a bad military.
>conservatives would sacrifice morality for vanity 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.
13123
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:56:59 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.
It might not be wrong, but if it's right, then that's a problem with the male soldiers. You don't see air traffic controllers looking away from their screens because there's a girl sitting next to them. If our soldiers are too immature and hormone-driven to work with the oppsite sex, how is that a problem with the opposite sex? It's a problem with the soldiers.
13125
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:45:01 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.
Mental, then? Same goes. 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.
13126
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:43:10 PM »
You're not born believing in a creed or religion. Your gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality are fixed.
I still see no good reason as to why they should be allowed to be discriminated against.
They shouldn't, but being free from discrimination based on something you chose for yourself isn't as important as being free from discrimination based on something you didn't ask for.
13127
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:42:01 PM »
>sexuality
>fixed
identarians leave.
Are you still stuck in the 90s or some shit? You're born gay or straight.
13128
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:40:06 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.
13129
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:37:39 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?
I NEVER said that. Learn to fucking read. And yes, if a mentally retarded person passed every test and requirement that's required to enlist, it would be wrong to deny him that.
Same goes for the no-armed man. If he passed all the requirements that it takes to become a police officer, he should be able to serve.
13130
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:34:43 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.
What the fuck is this post? Conspiracy to bring down women?? All I said was, if Turkey's contention panned out (no woman can pass the test men can) then there would be no need to write that extra law actually plainly banning all women, even those who passed the test, from combat roles.
13131
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:32:43 PM »
creed or religion. I think the last two should be removed.
That seems incredibly hypocritical of you.
You're not born believing in a creed or religion. Your gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality are fixed.
13132
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:31:47 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?
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.
13133
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:26:17 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. A boost in combat effectiveness doesn't matter if you have to discriminate against certain demographics to get it.
Yes, it does. The average male isn't even fit for combat roles. It's not about men or women, it's about the physical and mental fortitude to accomplish a mission. Very few men are cut out for it, and significantly fewer women are too.
Exactly. And yet, a woman who passes every test the normal frontline soldier does isn't allowed to serve.
Because they basically don't exist. They had to give those female Ranger candidates multiple chances and exceptions to the regulations. An example where you do see women in combat is Navy EOD, and even then a lot of them feel uncomfortable about it because meeting fitness scores on paper isn't the same as performing in an operational environment. An average fit male could drag a wounded 200lb guy carrying a 50lb bag; only exceptionally fit women could do the same, and even then they'd have less endurance to do so.
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.
13134
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:16:17 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!
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.
13135
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:14:54 PM »
then we shouldn't be doing that
boom
/thread
I think that's the consensus, yes. Not sure what Class is arguing for.
my stance is exactly the same as verbatim's but he's more eloquent than me
13136
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:14:12 PM »
very simple issue, not sure what the big deal is
The "big deal" is, that they are lowering the standards to meet some quota.
literally no one ITT advocates that
13137
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:12:48 PM »
A boost in combat effectiveness doesn't matter if you have to discriminate against certain demographics to get it.
Yes, it does. The average male isn't even fit for combat roles. It's not about men or women, it's about the physical and mental fortitude to accomplish a mission. Very few men are cut out for it, and significantly fewer women are too.
Exactly. And yet, a woman who passes every test the normal frontline soldier does isn't allowed to serve. I don't care if 99/100 men pass the test and 1/100 women do, that one woman still deserves to be in the same squad as the men who passed.
13138
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:10:41 PM »
My problem is not that women are receiving preferential treatment, my problem is that combat effectiveness and unit cohesion are being sacrificed in the name of arbitrary shit like "equality".
Probably because equality is more important than combat effectivenss and unit cohesion.
Sure, until you lose your equality to a more competent invader that doesn't give a fuck about muh soggy knees.
Lmao, do you actually believe America is legitimately at risk of being invaded anytime in the next century? 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.
13139
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:08:23 PM »
The tangible progression and advancement of our country. How big our cities are, how big our military is, how bug our GDP is, etc. That is quite a conservative interpretation of progress.
Progress in the sense of women's rights, equality, etc, isn't really "progress", it's just being morally correct.
13140
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:07:06 PM »
My problem is not that women are receiving preferential treatment, my problem is that combat effectiveness and unit cohesion are being sacrificed in the name of arbitrary shit like "equality".
Probably because equality is more important than "combat effectiveness" and "unit cohesion".
Pages: 1 ... 436437438 439440 ... 1001
|
Show Posts