It's not worse. Discrimination is worse.

you're gonna have a lot of trouble convincing me otherwise

It's not a surprise. Hence "of course".

Isn't the purpose of having a defense force to defend your country? you need women for your country to continue existing, so sending them off to die rather defeats the point, no?

Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 08:17:35 PM

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 13, 2015, 08:03:28 PM

Gotta love the thinly veiled sexism ITT

is it the bitter towards female privilege camp or is it the women arent good enough to serve camp
i cant tell which you mean

Mainly referring to Slash and this whole "women can't serve in combat roles" bullshit. If men can serve in combat roles, women can too. I don't care if it makes the military 1/1000 as effective, there's still an ethical obligation to allow equality.

Is this a joke? It would be beyond farcical if it were serious.

Isn't the purpose of having a defense force to defend your country? you need women for your country to continue existing, so sending them off to die rather defeats the point, no?

Don't you need men for that purpose too? Or are you an espouser of polygamy or some sort of breeding system in the event of a gender imbalance favoring females?

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 14, 2015, 12:13:05 AM

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 12:12:24 AM

Isn't the purpose of having a defense force to defend your country? you need women for your country to continue existing, so sending them off to die rather defeats the point, no?

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 13, 2015, 08:19:17 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 08:17:35 PM

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 13, 2015, 08:03:28 PM

Gotta love the thinly veiled sexism ITT

is it the bitter towards female privilege camp or is it the women arent good enough to serve camp
i cant tell which you mean

Mainly referring to Slash and this whole "women can't serve in combat roles" bullshit. If men can serve in combat roles, women can too. I don't care if it makes the military 1/1000 as effective, there's still an ethical obligation to allow equality.

Is this a joke? It would be beyond farcical if it were serious.

What the fuck? No, gender equality is not a joke.

You are literally saying that you would be fine with crippling the army, destroying it's entire reason for existing,g and above all get your people killed, for the sake of a vague notion of equality.

How is making the military worse at doing it's job, by your own admission, an ethical obligation?

Equality is far more important than military strength. We don't even need militaries in this day and age.

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 12:16:58 AM

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 14, 2015, 12:13:05 AM

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 12:12:24 AM

Isn't the purpose of having a defense force to defend your country? you need women for your country to continue existing, so sending them off to die rather defeats the point, no?

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 13, 2015, 08:19:17 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 08:17:35 PM

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 13, 2015, 08:03:28 PM

Gotta love the thinly veiled sexism ITT

is it the bitter towards female privilege camp or is it the women arent good enough to serve camp
i cant tell which you mean

Mainly referring to Slash and this whole "women can't serve in combat roles" bullshit. If men can serve in combat roles, women can too. I don't care if it makes the military 1/1000 as effective, there's still an ethical obligation to allow equality.

Is this a joke? It would be beyond farcical if it were serious.

What the fuck? No, gender equality is not a joke.

You are literally saying that you would be fine with crippling the army, destroying it's entire reason for existing,g and above all get your people killed, for the sake of a vague notion of equality.

How is making the military worse at doing it's job, by your own admission, an ethical obligation?

Equality is far more important than military strength. We don't even need militaries in this day and age.

Your notion of equality can only be made a reality if you're capable of defending it against any invading force. In my opinion survival precedes all other wants and needs, and one of the requirements for a society to survive is that it must be able to protect itself.

And if we don't need millitaries, why would we want more women to join them?

Quote from: Tsirist on October 14, 2015, 12:15:18 AM

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 12:12:24 AM

Isn't the purpose of having a defense force to defend your country? you need women for your country to continue existing, so sending them off to die rather defeats the point, no?

Don't you need men for that purpose too? Or are you an espouser of polygamy or some sort of breeding system in the event of a gender imbalance favoring females?

Of course you need men, and no, I only support monogamy. But the way in which humans have evolved is one where males are more expendable,( It's why men are physically stronger and more wiling to do anything that's dangerous). My opinion is just a consequence of growth being limited the scarcer resources, one of which happens to be women capable of bearing children; I see no benefit in making such a resource more scarce.

And men who would help raise families are an abundant and disposable resource? I don't really see why you think only a fraction of women are capable of bearing children. If you're the monogamous type then under your system a functional family probably includes two people producing and raising children.

This isn't really the direction I'd approach this issue from to begin with but sending out one gender and not the other, and saying that it's OK because you don't need that gender to continue societal growth, seems contradictory. If you assume a 50/50 split of the genders and send out 10% of the men and they die, and you assume monogamous relationships and complete pairings without cheating, etc., then at maximum you now have 80% of the original population reproducing.

On the other hand if you sent out 5% of the women and 5% of the men to die, that leaves 90% of the original population to reproduce.

If that's really how you want to approach this issue.

Hopefully this will get congress to actually do away with the draft.

The military doesn't even want it in place so it doesn't even serve the institution it was implemented to.

The "Draft" hasn't existed in any meaningful form for quite a number of years now.

Why selective Service remains is to serve as a pool of people that can be drawn at time of great crisis. Like, say, an actual war on the home front. You bet your sweet ass that if were actually invaded that the Draft would make a full come back. Not that if we were to fight a war on our soil that there wouldn't be a huge influx of volunteers.

Quote from: Kernel Kraut on October 14, 2015, 12:41:15 AM

Quote from: LC on October 13, 2015, 11:15:00 PM

Hopefully this will get congress to actually do away with the draft.

The military doesn't even want it in place so it doesn't even serve the institution it was implemented to.

The "Draft" hasn't existed in any meaningful form for quite a number of years now.

Why selective Service remains is to serve as a pool of people that can be drawn at time of great crisis. Like, say, an actual war on the home front. You bet your sweet ass that if were actually invaded that the Draft would make a full come back. Not that if we were to fight a war on our soil that there wouldn't be a huge influx of volunteers.

Which would never happen anyway so it's pointless to keep it around.

Never and Unlikely are two entirely different beasts.

We did fight World War II on US Soil after all. Lest the Aleutian Campaign be forgotten.

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 12:28:11 AM

And if we don't need millitaries, why would we want more women to join them?

Even if it's not needed, if we're going to have a military, there should be equality in it. As with everything.

I don't think I understand where you're coming from, why is equality so important that any other metric can be sacrificed in favor of it?

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 14, 2015, 12:32:51 AM

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 12:28:11 AM

And if we don't need millitaries, why would we want more women to join them?

Even if it's not needed, if we're going to have a military, there should be equality in it. As with everything.

I don't think I understand where you're coming from, why is equality so important that any other metric can be sacrificed in favor of it?

Gender/racial equality is one of the most important things in a society. It's only seconded by rule of consent in terms of importance.

Quote from: Kernel Kraut on October 14, 2015, 12:50:15 AM

Quote from: LC on October 14, 2015, 12:45:10 AM

Quote from: Kernel Kraut on October 14, 2015, 12:41:15 AM

Quote from: LC on October 13, 2015, 11:15:00 PM

Hopefully this will get congress to actually do away with the draft.

The military doesn't even want it in place so it doesn't even serve the institution it was implemented to.

The "Draft" hasn't existed in any meaningful form for quite a number of years now.

Why selective Service remains is to serve as a pool of people that can be drawn at time of great crisis. Like, say, an actual war on the home front. You bet your sweet ass that if were actually invaded that the Draft would make a full come back. Not that if we were to fight a war on our soil that there wouldn't be a huge influx of volunteers.

Which would never happen anyway so it's pointless to keep it around.

Never and Unlikely are two entirely different beasts.

We did fight World War II on US Soil after all. Lest the Aleutian Campaign be forgotten.

Stop

There will never be another war like WWII and no nation on Earth is capable of conducting a successful invasion of the US.

It will never happen.

You say that so assuredly. While I'm inclined to agree that the simple existence of Nuclear Weapons will prevent two nuclear powers from going to war, I also believe it's naive to completely dismiss the possibility. Stranger things have literally happened. I mean, for fuck's sake, look at the start of World War I and the intertwined alliances and defense treaties that led to that hell.

Yes, the probability is low that another major war will start. Yes, the likelihood of an Invasion of the United States is next to nill. But to say that the chances are so low that it will never happen is just dumb. You cannot predict geopolitical climates in 20 years. You cannot predict major events that change the world and it's course. We almost had World War 3 quite a few times during the Cold War. While tensions have died down, it doesn't mean they are gone.

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 14, 2015, 01:07:37 AM

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 12:58:52 AM

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 14, 2015, 12:32:51 AM

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 12:28:11 AM

And if we don't need millitaries, why would we want more women to join them?

Even if it's not needed, if we're going to have a military, there should be equality in it. As with everything.

I don't think I understand where you're coming from, why is equality so important that any other metric can be sacrificed in favor of it?

Gender/racial equality is one of the most important things in a society. It's only seconded by rule of consent in terms of importance.

No I mean why is it so important?

For reference, I believe survival to be the most important thing for any entity, and my reasoning is quite simple. If you cannot survive, then you are dead, and incapable of doing anything. So if you wish to do anything, then you need to be capable of survival. This logic applies to any living organism, and anything that is even vaguely similar to one (like a business, or a country). Even if you hold those two ideals in high regard, they mean nothing if you're dead, so you need to put your survival, or the survival of others that can carry on those ideals, first.

Because we're already surviving. We live in a huge, powerful first world nation. There's practically no chance the US will have a problem with survival anytime within the next 1,000 years. We've already made it. Now isn't the time to focus on something that's already been achieved, it's time to focus on making sure we deserve it.

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 01:32:09 AM

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 14, 2015, 01:07:37 AM

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 12:58:52 AM

Quote from: Carsonogen on October 14, 2015, 12:32:51 AM

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 12:28:11 AM

And if we don't need millitaries, why would we want more women to join them?

Even if it's not needed, if we're going to have a military, there should be equality in it. As with everything.

I don't think I understand where you're coming from, why is equality so important that any other metric can be sacrificed in favor of it?

Gender/racial equality is one of the most important things in a society. It's only seconded by rule of consent in terms of importance.

No I mean why is it so important?

For reference, I believe survival to be the most important thing for any entity, and my reasoning is quite simple. If you cannot survive, then you are dead, and incapable of doing anything. So if you wish to do anything, then you need to be capable of survival. This logic applies to any living organism, and anything that is even vaguely similar to one (like a business, or a country). Even if you hold those two ideals in high regard, they mean nothing if you're dead, so you need to put your survival, or the survival of others that can carry on those ideals, first.

Because we're already surviving. We live in a huge, powerful first world nation. There's practically no chance the US will have a problem with survival anytime within the next 1,000 years. We've already made it. Now isn't the time to focus on something that's already been achieved, it's time to focus on making sure we deserve it.

Can you live without eating food? without drinking water? without breathing air? Survival is not something that you can acquire once and then move on from, it is a constant process that only stops when you're dead. The entire reason I started this discussion is because you said something that goes against everything I understand about human nature, and I'm no closer to understanding your point of view despite very much wanting to do so.

Quote from: Cadenza on October 14, 2015, 01:32:09 AM

For reference, I believe survival to be the most important thing for any entity, and my reasoning is quite simple. If you cannot survive, then you are dead, and incapable of doing anything. So if you wish to do anything, then you need to be capable of survival. This logic applies to any living organism, and anything that is even vaguely similar to one (like a business, or a country). Even if you hold those two ideals in high regard, they mean nothing if you're dead, so you need to put your survival, or the survival of others that can carry on those ideals, first.

Surely you realize this is not an argument you can apply to others, right? The simplest contrary notion I can think of, for instance, is that held by someone who believes their ideals and will are what must survive, before their bodies. Regardless of the extent to which you prize survival as a human, they prize the survival of the organism that is their will, and they will sacrifice their body before their will out of the belief that the sacrifice of their will may as well render them dead bodily.

Mate I already mentioned that in my post right at the endt, I bolded it just now.

Mate I already mentioned that in my post right at the endt, I bolded it just now.

I think you're missing my point if you think that addresses it, when what you mentioned is itself the issue. People don't have to live for an end. They can hold an ideal for something and live their life in pursuit of that ideal. Whether or not that ideal is held beyond them in life or death is irrelevant to them. You say survival is the most important pursuit of any entity, but some entities may exploit others for survival, yes? In the case of these people, their ideals, their ideas, survive because the person adhering to them does not discard them in favor of their own survival. Whether the ideal can perpetuate itself to another being to survive one host's death is irrelevant, as even if it were made "pointless" by the lone host's inevitable death, the full life of that person has greater value than the part of the life it would get if the ideal were weak enough to allow itself to be discarded under your reasoning.

You only have to look around you to see this effect at play. You even describe it in your own post. But you are mistaking a human for tabula rasa when it is already affected by the ideals that define it.