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 ... 464748 4950 ... 84
1411
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:02:30 PM »
'The draft is a problem, but we should make more people sign up for it in the meantime' is absurd. It's literally contributing to the problem.
More like, "The draft is a problem, so we should take away one of the things that makes it a problem."
Not really. If mandatory sign-ups are part of the problem, the solution is fewer sign-ups, not more.
I have to give you this one, when considering the actual likelihood of the draft happening.
1412
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:18:39 PM »
uh
that's some weird camera perspective because it looks like the belt has barely a foot of diameter
1413
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:17:01 PM »
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.
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.
1414
« on: October 13, 2015, 09:33:57 PM »
The Jewish coherency as an ethnic group is part of the reason why they are still stigmatized. If they cared as much about their race as the Swedes, the Irish, etc. the majority of antisemitism in Western nations would be dead.
Of course this doesn't apply to all jews, because woah guess what they dont make it part of their identity like the Hasidics or the rich types up-town New York types do
1415
« on: October 13, 2015, 09:29:47 PM »
why 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.
I wouldn't say what can potentially be years of young people's lives is anything to be considered trivial. And in many nations this topic is extremely relevant. Indonesia(or Thailand I can't rmember) and Finland still have active conscription exclusively for males.
1416
« on: October 13, 2015, 09:23:15 PM »
Cedric's death in Harry Potter got me because his dad was so endearing.
1417
« on: October 13, 2015, 09:19:34 PM »
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 about eliminating what is literally sexual discrimination in a government function. The draft does not exist solely to draft combat roles. Women should make themselves available should roles they can fill need filling. It's like if the government didn't collect tax from women. Women would benefit from the functions of government while men would have to pay more in order to fill that deficit. "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. It's taking some of the burden that would otherwise be put on men and allocate it to women. When a position like driving a truck needs filling, why should a man have to fear more that he will lose months to years of his time at best than a woman will? 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.
The draft isn't just about being drafted, it's about being obligated to register yourself should your capabilities be needed, women should register so their abilities can be called upon if needed. What good does it do to let a system continue to discriminate based on sex? The criticisms against it are already known and nothing has changed, if we can make the system more fair while it continues to exist, why resist that change?
1418
« on: October 13, 2015, 08:19:07 PM »
meme opinion
Why the fuck do people keep saying this? Am I not allowed to have opinions without being called a goddamn meme? What the hell? It's the goddamn truth. If you like yourself, you don't look outside of yourself for validation.
Repeating yourself doesn't make you right.
Even if you were right, you have to explain how "liking yourself" is somehow relevant to anything at all. Which it isn't.
funny how you're saying that
1419
« on: October 13, 2015, 08:17:35 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
1420
« on: October 13, 2015, 08:15:29 PM »
Star Wars 7 is going to be so disappointing because there's no reason to think it'll be especially good but there's no way it'll be as bad as Lucas.
This. I try to explain this to people and they're like "Nah, JJ the real chosen one."
To be fair, he's emphasizing aspects of the original trilogy that made it great. Practical effects, real costumes, and so on. That, and his Star Trek movies were basically Star Trek: Star Wars. Judging by those movies, J.J. knows how to pull off excitement, emotion, and so on. Look at this video:
It's not hard to see why people are excited. For many, it's a return to form for Star Wars. The aspects of the original trilogy that made it so memorable and enjoyable being reintroduced to Star Wars? Awesome.
The Force Awakens isn't going to be Citizen Kane by any means. But it doesn't have to be. It just has to be a Star Wars movie, and so far it looks like that is what we're getting.
Pretty much my sentiment. Actually from what I've seen it actually does look like it'll be better than just a par movie, but plenty of trailers have tricked us in the past. What I expect will be a good movie that doesn't resonate well in the Star Wars IP. But considering the prequels...
1421
« on: October 13, 2015, 07:28:36 PM »
Star Wars 7 is going to be so disappointing because there's no reason to think it'll be especially good but there's no way it'll be as bad as Lucas.
1422
« on: October 13, 2015, 07:26:22 PM »
We just established it's not an expansion.
It is of eligibility. . .
Which is aside from your point. Expanding eligibility doesn't expand the suffering cased by it, with women gaining some probability of serving, men lose some probability.
1423
« on: October 13, 2015, 06:28:50 PM »
Shit
born too soon to avoid the draft born too late to uh well born with a dick
1424
« on: October 13, 2015, 06:25:19 PM »
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.
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. . .
We just established it's not an expansion. When draft quotas that would otherwise be filled by men are filled by women it reduces the chances of any man to be drafted. Considering women and men alike benefit from the protection of the state, it is incredibly unfair that women aren't obligated to do shit whilst men have to make up for that slack. It's akin to if women didn't have to pay taxes.
1425
« on: October 13, 2015, 04:06:39 PM »
1426
« on: October 13, 2015, 03:59:17 PM »
1427
« on: October 13, 2015, 03:54:02 PM »
Just 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.
That at least illustrates that eliminating women from the equation certainly doesn't fix the problem.
1428
« on: October 13, 2015, 03:52:37 PM »
Just 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.
Generally that isn't the case just because of the nature of our current conflicts, if we started fighting groups where the prospect of advancing enemies could spell complete unit devastation, and there were no external fire support, wounded would have to get left behind.
1429
« on: October 13, 2015, 03:47:27 PM »
Just 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.
1430
« on: October 13, 2015, 03:43:53 PM »
Are we going to ignore biological imperatives and the inability of men to serve cohesively with women on the battlefield?
Military service =/= combat positions. Women should still enter the draft for emergency infrastructure labor and other logistical needs.
I wasn't sure if anyone was arguing for them to be in combat roles or not that's why I thew that out there. I don't have a problem with non combat roles being filled by women.
On that topic I really am unsure about that "men can't be cohesive" meme. Just because you can say that it's instinctual for men to defend women isn't real sound, because units are fine being cohesive as they are now, when people form incredibly strong friendships and bonds with their comrades. You don't think people feel those same needs to save someone when it's their friend out there dying? Soldiers are plenty capable of rationalizing in that situation, and if some will inevitably break, well, some already inevitably break for essentially the same reason. But that's just my hypothesis. And if facts prove me wrong, I can only express my disappointment in soldiers' self control.
1431
« on: October 13, 2015, 03:38:43 PM »
Are we going to ignore biological imperatives and the inability of men to serve cohesively with women on the battlefield?
Military service =/= combat positions. Women should still enter the draft for emergency infrastructure labor and other logistical needs.
1432
« on: October 13, 2015, 03:29:31 PM »
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.
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.
1433
« on: October 13, 2015, 02:58:08 PM »
Unless it's uploaded free somewhere I don't have to dig for, I don't watch movies. Most of my movie viewing are those ones people upload on youtube with slightly edited filters that survive a month or two. I'm still incredibly interested in cinema though.
1434
« on: October 13, 2015, 02:56:42 PM »
My BF is pretty straight edge because of medical reasons, was also super vanillasexual. If the relationship develops you eventually start to wear off on them, or they just loosen up, depending how you look at it.
1435
« on: October 13, 2015, 01:39:12 PM »
Hopefully this finally gets politicians to get rid of that horrible and archaic system.
Can't wait to see women suddenly become advocates against it now that it might effect them.
1436
« on: October 13, 2015, 11:05:42 AM »
>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.
Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.
I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.
I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.
I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.
Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.
So care to explain why the vast majority of files that Snowden leaked had nothing to do with government oversight of domestic activities? 90% of the extracted documents were related to military capabilities.
Because what liberties the military has is most certainly relevant information to his type of view? He's an ideological defector, stop characterizing him otherwise.
1437
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:54:28 AM »
>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.
Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.
I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.
I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.
I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.
Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.
1438
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:44:09 AM »
>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.
Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.
I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.
I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.
1439
« on: October 13, 2015, 10:36:09 AM »
>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.
Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.
1440
« on: October 13, 2015, 09:57:31 AM »
Ah yes the lack of government intervention is certainly lifting those workers in Dubai with stolen visas from the slums.
Government still has a place in the market, don't be retarded.
Pages: 1 ... 464748 4950 ... 84
|
Show Posts