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 - eggsalad
Pages: 1 ... 454647 4849 ... 84
1381
« on: October 14, 2015, 08:44:21 PM »
Have you read Brave New World? Much better counterpart that tackles similar topics, save doublethink. 1984 was really only interesting on that subject, everything else more or less served to establish the concept.
Doublethink was an interesting concept, I'll give him that. Brave New World is next on my agenda, but after reading the premise, I have to wonder what makes it better than 1984.
Huxley is a much more poetic writer and although people are quick to describe the world as a dystopia it doesn't exist solely to torture those inside it. While EngSoc was an entity that exists outside anyone's moral boundaries, the order in BNW is something I can sympathize with and I think you might too. The conflict arises from broken characters in an orderly world as opposed to the opposite in 1984.
1382
« on: October 14, 2015, 08:38:41 PM »
Have you read Brave New World? IMO much better counterpart that tackles similar topics, save doublethink. 1984 was really only interesting on that subject, everything else more or less served to establish the concept.
1383
« on: October 14, 2015, 07:25:58 PM »
not once
1384
« on: October 14, 2015, 06:33:45 PM »
i like ur avvie
what is it from
pls dont be undertale
1385
« on: October 14, 2015, 04:29:14 PM »
For the millionth time, you have yet to address the psychological affects on unit cohesion when women are introduced into combat roles.
The psychological effects outlined in the first paper were caused by inadequate candidates being allowed in, which is a problem with testing. The women couldn't carry their load and underperformed, which weakened mutual trust in the units The problem is not that they are women, the problem is they couldn't carry their loads and underperformed. If a woman can carry their load and perform, there is no reason mutual trust deteriorates, and you need to give a reason they are barred. I know that what I'm advocating would still mean that there are hardly a handful of women serving, but I'd rather we acknowledge the difference between having a vagina and not being able to drag your buddy to safety.
1386
« on: October 14, 2015, 04:26:12 PM »
It doesn't matter if she meets the grade. Even women who pass the relevant tests (which are usually lowered)
That means the problems lie with the tests allowing unfit candidates in.
Even fit female candidates have shown a propensity to be incapable of meeting the physically demanding aspects of infantry like men can.
Even if they ticked every conceivable box there's still biological aptitudes that we simply cannot get away from, such as female bone density that renders women more likely to sustain injury.
Just because womens' mean bone density is lower doesn't mean that it is literally impossible for a woman to have acceptable levels. You have this delusion that although women are typically weaker than their male counterpart, that it is impossible for a woman to meet male par. No one is advocating changing the standards, and what examples you are using are examples you admit tainted by altered standards that allowed unfit candidates in.
When you describe these "fit female candidates" as incapable, you are revoking any meaning of them being "fit candidates".
tbh I realize this female candidate I describe is incredibly rare, and that trying to account for her in the situation of a draft is logistically wasteful, but I'm just trying to illustrate to you why the concept "no woman is fit for service" just doesn't make sense. when Pvt Jacob breaks his wrist it's because he worked too hard, when Pvt Janine breaks hers it's because she's a woman and should have never been a soldier.
For fuck sake I'm not even saying women aren't capable of competently handling infantry positions. I'm sure there are numerous women fit for the task. It really helps to the discourse if you read what I'm saying.
It has been proven time and time again that even physically adequate women have an inclination to adversely affect how units operate and bond, due to a variety of biological and psychological factors. These are issues that cannot be ignored simply because it makes you feel uncomfortable.
I won't deny it is discriminatory, because it absolutely is, but sacrificing the safety of military personnel just for the sake of equality really just holds no truck with me, nor the military for that matter.
Except I am addressing what you say you just choose to ignore me. >even adequate women are proven to weaken cohesion To which I pointed out that it was because many of the women failed to pull their weight in situations, which means that testing had failed to weed out candidates, and that these women were not actually adequate for the job in the first place. If a woman can pull her weight, you have to give a reason to disallow her. >psychological factors Inconclusive and based in hypothesis rather than theory. Positing that background "social influences" are more powerful and dangerous than emotional bonds made between friends is so ripe ridiculous it doesn't need refuting. You do nothing but look at aggregates to justify an absolute position. >Women have a lower mean accuracy than men. So fucking what? Women at the higher end of their spectrum may reach or even outperform men at the lower end of the men's spectrum. Those women who perform at or better than the levels of men have no reason to be disallowed. How much more do I have to keep ignoring your argument? Do I have to fucking draw it for you?
1387
« on: October 14, 2015, 04:13:26 PM »
Oh wow two isolated cases that still don't debunk the fact that women inevitably affect the unit cohesion. MY ARGUMENT IS SHATTERED!1!1
It's not "fact" because of the myriad of issues surrounding women entering. The "facts" you cited were situations where the system failed to weed out incapable candidates. They in no way make statements about how women innately destroy units, they illustrate that weak people destroy units, and women are not innately weak. Most are by large margins, but there will be outliers who are not, and barring them from service despite being free from the reasons most are rejected, is just ignorant discrimination.
1388
« on: October 14, 2015, 04:08:06 PM »
It doesn't matter if she meets the grade. Even women who pass the relevant tests (which are usually lowered)
That means the problems lie with the tests allowing unfit candidates in.
Even fit female candidates have shown a propensity to be incapable of meeting the physically demanding aspects of infantry like men can.
Even if they ticked every conceivable box there's still biological aptitudes that we simply cannot get away from, such as female bone density that renders women more likely to sustain injury.
Just because womens' mean bone density is lower doesn't mean that it is literally impossible for a woman to have acceptable levels. You have this delusion that although women are typically weaker than their male counterpart, that it is impossible for a woman to meet male par. No one is advocating changing the standards, and what examples you are using are examples you admit tainted by altered standards that allowed unfit candidates in. When you describe these "fit female candidates" as incapable, you are revoking any meaning of them being "fit candidates". tbh I realize this female candidate I describe is incredibly rare, and that trying to account for her in the situation of a draft is logistically wasteful, but I'm just trying to illustrate to you why the concept "no woman is fit for service" just doesn't make sense. when Pvt Jacob breaks his wrist it's because he worked too hard, when Pvt Janine breaks hers it's because she's a woman and should have never been a soldier.
1389
« on: October 14, 2015, 03:06:22 PM »
tsir
1390
« on: October 14, 2015, 03:06:06 PM »
fuck and forget
1391
« on: October 14, 2015, 03:05:14 PM »
Emily "Easy E" Mathers
1392
« on: October 14, 2015, 02:55:33 PM »
It doesn't matter if she meets the grade. Even women who pass the relevant tests (which are usually lowered)
That means the problems lie with the tests allowing unfit candidates in.
1393
« on: October 14, 2015, 01:50:10 PM »
Women should not be in infantry positions.
I don't care what bullshit equality argument you throw at me. Safety comes before any kind of tenuous quota someone has to fulfill.
If a woman is qualified to hold an infantry position, why shouldn't she be allowed to do it?
Detriment to unit cohesion and operational efficiency.
I don't understand how having mixed genders in infantry is detrimental to unit cohesion and efficiency.
We've been over this.
Social obligations demand men engage in self-sacrificial behavior to protect women, which can compromise not only the safety of other personnel, but also the success of the operation.
Social pressures also pressure men to save their friends, who they grow and develop with during their training, yet somehow that isn't a magically insane problem. Your hypothesis is flawed.
You aren't seriously equating the social dynamics between men and women to platonic same-sex friendship, are you?
If you seriously think that background social pressures of "women first" are more significant than the intense emotions surrounding brotherhood in arms then you are detached from reality.
1394
« on: October 14, 2015, 01:45:40 PM »
Women should not be in infantry positions.
I don't care what bullshit equality argument you throw at me. Safety comes before any kind of tenuous quota someone has to fulfill.
If a woman is qualified to hold an infantry position, why shouldn't she be allowed to do it?
Detriment to unit cohesion and operational efficiency.
I don't understand how having mixed genders in infantry is detrimental to unit cohesion and efficiency.
We've been over this.
Social obligations demand men engage in self-sacrificial behavior to protect women, which can compromise not only the safety of other personnel, but also the success of the operation.
Social pressures also pressure men to save their friends, who they grow and develop with during their training, yet somehow that isn't a magically insane problem. Your hypothesis is flawed.
1395
« on: October 14, 2015, 01:41:51 PM »
Women should not be in infantry positions.
I don't care what bullshit equality argument you throw at me. Safety comes before any kind of tenuous quota someone has to fulfill.
If a woman is qualified to hold an infantry position, why shouldn't she be allowed to do it?
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262626.pdf
Innumerable evidence within the IDF and relevant studies suggest that a woman's presence has an adverse effect on unit cohesion and the capacity to carry out orders within a unit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/14/navy-secretary-threw-us-under-the-bus-say-marines-in-gender-integrated-infantry-unit/
Not to mention that women are twice as likely to sustain injury during combat situations and have been shown to be substantially less skilled in regards to shooting accuracy.
Sometimes it makes me wonder what you guys are prepared to sacrifice just for the sake of 'equality.'
Gave the first one a scan and it almost definitely only cited evidence where the women were unable to operate at expected levels, and used that difference in effectiveness as reason to why mutual bonds would be weakened in units. Max's point is that if you have a woman who meets the standards of men then there is no reason to disallow her. For fuck's sake, the mean accuracy or lifting capacity of women is lower than men doesn't matter for shit when the subject matter is allowing a woman who is at the men's mean to serve. No one is saying let a woman who can't drag a 240 pound person serve because mah feelings, they are saying if a woman is able to do that then there is no reason to disallow her. It doesn't matter how rare that event is, the person in question does not share the characteristics with other women that makes them detrimental, thus there is no reason to not take them.
1396
« on: October 14, 2015, 01:25:16 PM »
Women should not be in infantry positions.
I don't care what bullshit equality argument you throw at me. Safety comes before any kind of tenuous quota someone has to fulfill.
If a woman is qualified to hold an infantry position, why shouldn't she be allowed to do it?
Detriment to unit cohesion and operational efficiency.
I keep hearing this meme but I really want a demonstration of it.
1397
« on: October 14, 2015, 01:22:16 PM »
It's going to look small in some contexts unless there was literally an infinite array of celestial bodies for us to not be able to quantify. I say celestial bodies specifically here because I know fuck all about the actual amount of energy and matter in existence. Quantum background fuzz and relativity make it hard for me to just think that there is X amount of energy and X amount of matter in existence.
yfw there exists a mechanism for conversion of matter to energy and vice-versa
iknowiwasjustsayingthatIdontunderstandparticlephysicswellenoughokayleavemealone;_;
1398
« on: October 14, 2015, 01:21:00 PM »
I wouldn't go as far as homicide, manslaughter at worst. I'd say there was definite misconduct that should result in punitive measures though. The officers made mistakes that should be standard procedure and part of their training: you should secure a belligerent detainee, you should err on the side of caution with medical injuries.
1399
« on: October 14, 2015, 01:12:22 PM »
It's going to look small in some contexts unless there was literally an infinite array of celestial bodies for us to not be able to quantify. I say celestial bodies specifically here because I know fuck all about the actual amount of energy and matter in existence. Quantum background fuzz and relativity make it hard for me to just think that there is X amount of energy and X amount of matter in existence.
1400
« on: October 14, 2015, 01:08:53 PM »
Bloodborne spoilers All he wanted is for you to not suffer his fate.
shit that score is good
All of Bloodborne's music is pretty great, for some reason I think it's a game you'd like a lot.
It's mood and aesthetic definitely seems so, if it were something other than a game I'd definitely have watched it by now.
1401
« on: October 14, 2015, 01:00:29 PM »
Bloodborne spoilers All he wanted is for you to not suffer his fate.
shit that score is good
1402
« on: October 14, 2015, 12:36:38 PM »
its so high i hide it passively without even trying
1403
« on: October 14, 2015, 12:26:49 PM »
Hard to define when usually what makes a villain cool is being morally ambiguous.
Frampt, Kaathe, and Gwynn were an interesting trio. Gwyn was just an old, senile animal by the end that Frampt or Kaathe manipulated you to kill. And although Frampt and Kaathe were in opposition to each other, they both only sought to manipulate you to work against your own interest as an undead, and were only different in name.
And just in general the Dragons of Dark Souls represent the abstract value of death or nonexistence. The Lords upset an order that was stable and free of all the suffering that followed its destruction. In the end all of the Lords' ambitions only resulted in their torturous demise and a broken world. The creation of life only brought about a greater amount of suffering and death.
1404
« on: October 14, 2015, 11:54:51 AM »
at what point did it just become accepted that alimony is about coming away from a marriage with 50% of your spouse's wealth rather than assuring that someone who made life plans according to the status of their relationship isn't suddenly left in poverty
when did this become a thing even
1405
« on: October 14, 2015, 11:12:00 AM »
For instance, when on reserves, Natives pay no taxes whatsoever
Probably because reserves are meant to be pseudo-sovereign states.
1406
« on: October 14, 2015, 12:40:54 AM »
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.
That is a really really really really toxic perspective of how generations should be made. Thinking of men as no more than the means of sperm delivery and women no more than baby ovens are two of the most sexist and demeaning values imaginable. "Growth" that entails anything but having many children with the same spouse over time is how you get a generation of single parent families that leave long lasting negative effects on those children. And if women are to be afforded such a gracious privilege, the least they should do is be obligated to fulfill their end of the bargain and bear children, but not even that is asked of them.
1407
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:41:20 PM »
The prequels are better than the original trilogy
In what they were intended to be? In terms of how fun it is to analyze them and see how bad they are?
1408
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:08:25 PM »
i have a phobia of blades dear christ why
You get an infinite life bubblyy shields.
Happeh?
yes
does this technically mean that the game inevitably is a draw because i can't kill them but they cant kill me
No. They can still walts into your dome of safety.
Best suggestion is getting with a pack of Sep7ies who are pretty competent.
HOW DOES THAT PROTECT ME FROM BLADES
1409
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:05:39 PM »
i have a phobia of blades dear christ why
You get an infinite life bubblyy shields.
Happeh?
yes does this technically mean that the game inevitably is a draw because i can't kill them but they cant kill me
1410
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:03:06 PM »
i have a phobia of blades dear christ why
Pages: 1 ... 454647 4849 ... 84
|
Show Posts