Quote from: Joyce Byers on August 16, 2016, 07:43:48 PM

Quote from: PsygnIrish on August 16, 2016, 07:39:31 PM

Quote from: Joyce Byers on August 16, 2016, 02:33:24 PM

But those (women) who do pass have every right to fight on the battlefield.

But as shown, none have.

Then there's no problem and all of you have nothing to worry about.

But when and if one does, she deserves a spot in infantry, same as any man.

"men and women should be treated and viewed as exact equals even though it's been proven time and time again they aren't and I accept this, but I'm still going to whine"

They should be treated as equals under the law, of course.

Quote from: Joyce Byers on August 16, 2016, 07:47:33 PM

Quote from: challengerX on August 16, 2016, 07:45:56 PM

Quote from: Joyce Byers on August 16, 2016, 07:43:48 PM

Quote from: PsygnIrish on August 16, 2016, 07:39:31 PM

Quote from: Joyce Byers on August 16, 2016, 02:33:24 PM

But those (women) who do pass have every right to fight on the battlefield.

But as shown, none have.

Then there's no problem and all of you have nothing to worry about.

But when and if one does, she deserves a spot in infantry, same as any man.

"men and women should be treated and viewed as exact equals even though it's been proven time and time again they aren't and I accept this, but I'm still going to whine"

They should be treated as equals under the law, of course.

And they have. They didn't qualify.

And they shouldn't get in. Only those who pass the qualification requirements should. If that's no current women, then none should be able to enlist. If a woman does eventually qualify, then she should be able to serve on the front lines, same as any man.

Holy shit shut the fuck up you don't have rights nobody has rights

i don't understand what you mean when you say this

my constitution guarantees my rights, even if rights do not exist in nature, fundamentally

then you are legally protected but these rights """"exist"""" only as long as the government in question continues to uphold them.

I mean, has anyone ever argued that rights exists in nature and aren't man-made? Your proposition was always the way I saw it, going through history classes. If our government was dissolved overnight, rights wouldn't exist.

Maybe it's my lack of experience on the subject talking, but. . .

Quote from: Joyce Byers on August 16, 2016, 10:00:27 PM

Quote from: Grozny on August 16, 2016, 09:53:59 PM

Quote from: Joyce Byers on August 16, 2016, 09:51:03 PM

Human rights come from morality, not the government.

Civil rights come from the government.

morality comes from God or the next best thing, and guides rulers into offering civil rights and freedoms for those under their leadership, for the good of the nation.

FUCK the enlightenment tbh

Morality is a constant, but is interpreted in different ways by humans. Therefore, human rights are interpreted in different ways. Whenever I speak on the subject, I'm obviously referring to my interpretation of it.

Not everyone believes in God, but almost everyone believes in morality, and so to claim that morality solely comes from God is just incorrect.

functional morality can only come from an unwavering God or God-like fixed source.

If morality is subjective or in any way impermanent, it might as well not exist at all.

I don't give a fuck what people believe, people are fucking retarded.

Morality is fixed, and just because everyone believes different things about it doesn't mean that it's not. Needing a giant, omniscient deity to tell you what's right and wrong may be necessary for some people, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that's the only source of good and evil. The existence of suffering is where morality comes from. If you were to suddenly learn that there is objectively no God or fixed source, does that mean torturing a child to death would suddenly cease to be immoral? The nuances of the subject go deeper than religious dictates.

Quote from: Joyce Byers on August 16, 2016, 10:20:17 PM

If you were to suddenly learn that there is objectively no God or fixed source, does that mean torturing a child to death would suddenly cease to be immoral?

Yes.

Yeah, I'm done with this conversation.

Nice change of pace there. We went from a discussion of private pyle fucking up his gains to everybody's personal fetish over whether or not there's a sky wizard and board game rules.

Quote from: Joyce Byers on August 16, 2016, 02:33:24 PM

But those who do pass have every right to fight on the battlefield.

Given that your entire moral philosophy is basically based on consent and the NAP, why are you so eager to expand the amount of people who could potentially go to war?

It's actually more like forced equality and a perversion of the NAP.
That's why.

muh "unit cohesion"

Quote from: Raven on August 17, 2016, 09:59:28 AM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on August 17, 2016, 09:42:37 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on August 17, 2016, 04:46:02 AM

Quote from: Joyce Byers on August 16, 2016, 02:33:24 PM

But those who do pass have every right to fight on the battlefield.

Given that your entire moral philosophy is basically based on consent and the NAP, why are you so eager to expand the amount of people who could potentially go to war?

It's actually more like forced equality and a perversion of the NAP.
That's why.

But really, why would the gender of a combatant matter if they prove that they are capable of performing the tasks that their fellow combatants are?

We're not saying the bar should be lowered.

Also NAP is adverse to human nature.

Turkey covered the costs bit.
Then there's data from the IDF that shows that co-ed units are statistically less effective in the field.
How are property rights adverse to human nature?

NAP as in Non-Aggression Principle, I thought.