Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:47:27 PMQuote from: Mad Max on October 13, 2015, 03:46:15 PMQuote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:43:53 PMJust because you can say that it's instinctual for men to defend women...isn't that a good thing? You should care about the safety and well-being of the members of your crew, shouldn't you?Generally it's better to have people thinking rationally about a mission rather than their immediate squad, as far as military doctrine goes.Well, yeah. But will men in combat roles just leave other men behind? I don't think that's the case.
Quote from: Mad Max on October 13, 2015, 03:46:15 PMQuote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:43:53 PMJust because you can say that it's instinctual for men to defend women...isn't that a good thing? You should care about the safety and well-being of the members of your crew, shouldn't you?Generally it's better to have people thinking rationally about a mission rather than their immediate squad, as far as military doctrine goes.
Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:43:53 PMJust because you can say that it's instinctual for men to defend women...isn't that a good thing? You should care about the safety and well-being of the members of your crew, shouldn't you?
Just because you can say that it's instinctual for men to defend women
Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:47:27 PMQuote from: Mad Max on October 13, 2015, 03:46:15 PMQuote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:43:53 PMJust because you can say that it's instinctual for men to defend women...isn't that a good thing? You should care about the safety and well-being of the members of your crew, shouldn't you?Generally it's better to have people thinking rationally about a mission rather than their immediate squad, as far as military doctrine goes.When asked why they reenlisted, the majority of soldiers responded that they were returning to protect their friends in their unit.
Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 13, 2015, 03:26:28 PMI'm genuinely surprised at the people in this thread--who oppose the draft--effectively celebrating a doubling said draft on the basis that it's "gender equality" and the "next best option". What the fuck kind of logic is that? Progressivism has become a parody of itself.You're not doubling the number of needed draftees, you are dividing the burden of the needed amount across the populace in a way that doesn't discriminate based on genitalia.
I'm genuinely surprised at the people in this thread--who oppose the draft--effectively celebrating a doubling said draft on the basis that it's "gender equality" and the "next best option". What the fuck kind of logic is that? Progressivism has become a parody of itself.
Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:29:31 PMQuote from: Meta as Fuck on October 13, 2015, 03:26:28 PMI'm genuinely surprised at the people in this thread--who oppose the draft--effectively celebrating a doubling said draft on the basis that it's "gender equality" and the "next best option". What the fuck kind of logic is that? Progressivism has become a parody of itself.You're not doubling the number of needed draftees, you are dividing the burden of the needed amount across the populace in a way that doesn't discriminate based on genitalia.Since when was any expansion of eligibility consistent with the position of abolition. . .
Shit
Quote from: Gravedigger on October 13, 2015, 03:07:31 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 13, 2015, 03:01:16 PMQuote from: Gravedigger on October 13, 2015, 02:59:49 PM>forcing women to get rapedAre you a spambot or something? Your post literally makes no sense or even applies.If women got selected for service, they'd be forced to go to a place where sexual assault rates are something like 1 in 3.What's your point?
Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 13, 2015, 03:01:16 PMQuote from: Gravedigger on October 13, 2015, 02:59:49 PM>forcing women to get rapedAre you a spambot or something? Your post literally makes no sense or even applies.If women got selected for service, they'd be forced to go to a place where sexual assault rates are something like 1 in 3.
Quote from: Gravedigger on October 13, 2015, 02:59:49 PM>forcing women to get rapedAre you a spambot or something? Your post literally makes no sense or even applies.
>forcing women to get raped
We just established it's not an expansion.
Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 06:25:19 PMWe just established it's not an expansion.It is of eligibility. . .
Gotta love the thinly veiled sexism ITT
Quote from: Carsonogen on October 13, 2015, 08:03:28 PMGotta love the thinly veiled sexism ITTis it the bitter towards female privilege camp or is it the women arent good enough to serve campi cant tell which you mean
Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:29:31 PMQuote from: Meta as Fuck on October 13, 2015, 03:26:28 PMI'm genuinely surprised at the people in this thread--who oppose the draft--effectively celebrating a doubling said draft on the basis that it's "gender equality" and the "next best option". What the fuck kind of logic is that? Progressivism has become a parody of itself.You're not doubling the number of needed draftees, you are dividing the burden of the needed amount across the populace in a way that doesn't discriminate based on genitalia.^come the fuck on meta
Who cares? It's not a substantial change from the status quo regarding the existence of the draft, and granting this kind of political capital and flexibility to a reform on the basis of vapid ideas of gender equality is utterly ludicrous. It's essentially: "If we can't get rid of it, let's inflict it on everybody equally". Fuck that. This isn't fucking progress; it's a pointless policy with a vapid basis. And shit, if the US ever needs the draft I'd imagine combat roles would be mostly in demand. Even if you agree with desegregating combat roles, the evidence is pretty clear that women are not as physically capable in most instances. That would be logistically bothersome at a time of what should be immense need.
Who cares? It's not a substantial change from the status quo regarding the existence of the draft, and granting this kind of political capital and flexibility to a reform on the basis of vapid ideas of gender equality is utterly ludicrous.
"If we can't get rid of it, let's inflict it on everybody equally". Fuck that. This isn't fucking progress; it's a pointless policy with a vapid basis.
And shit, if the US ever needs the draft I'd imagine combat roles would be mostly in demand. Even if you agree with desegregating combat roles, the evidence is pretty clear that women are not as physically capable in most instances. That would be logistically bothersome at a time of what should be immense need.
why resist that change?
Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 09:19:34 PMwhy resist that change?As I've said, my main issue is the expenditure of political capital on an issue when--given what is at stake--it is largely irrelevant.
Yeah, uh, despite my previous post, I have to agree with Meta. It seems a bit inconsistent and pointless to deliberately exacerbate a problem (if you see it as a problem) if you ultimately want to eliminate it.'Gender equality' is missing the point.
Quote from: Kupo on October 13, 2015, 10:13:19 PMYeah, uh, despite my previous post, I have to agree with Meta. It seems a bit inconsistent and pointless to deliberately exacerbate a problem (if you see it as a problem) if you ultimately want to eliminate it.'Gender equality' is missing the point.Explain how eliminating discrimination makes it worse.I can respect you guys saying it's not worth the federal effort, that's more or less a difference of values, what I won't accept is saying that this is not an improvement of the current state.
Army: Women will have to register for the draft
