creed or religion. I think the last two should be removed.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:26:17 PMQuote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 03, 2016, 11:18:40 PMQuote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:16:17 PMBanning women from combat roles is one of the many civil rights violations the government is freely allowed to commit because of enablers like you.On WHAT basis is service in the military, let alone combat roles a civil right?If you're going to let one demographic do something under the law, you HAVE to let every other demographic do the same, or else you're being discriminatory. It's a civil right to not be discriminated against on account of your gender, race, sexuality, ethnicity, creed or religion. I think the last two should be removed, but I don't care that much about that.Don't appeal to the law, you were just complaining about the government Illuminati alien body snatchers trying to steal muh rights. I don't care what some paper says, where do you think this right comes from?
Quote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 03, 2016, 11:18:40 PMQuote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:16:17 PMBanning women from combat roles is one of the many civil rights violations the government is freely allowed to commit because of enablers like you.On WHAT basis is service in the military, let alone combat roles a civil right?If you're going to let one demographic do something under the law, you HAVE to let every other demographic do the same, or else you're being discriminatory. It's a civil right to not be discriminated against on account of your gender, race, sexuality, ethnicity, creed or religion. I think the last two should be removed, but I don't care that much about that.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:16:17 PMBanning women from combat roles is one of the many civil rights violations the government is freely allowed to commit because of enablers like you.On WHAT basis is service in the military, let alone combat roles a civil right?
Banning women from combat roles is one of the many civil rights violations the government is freely allowed to commit because of enablers like you.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:26:17 PMcreed or religion. I think the last two should be removed.That seems incredibly hypocritical of you.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:26:17 PMThey obviously do exist, or else there wouldn't need to be a bar on women serving in combat roles in the first place. If literally no woman could pass the same requirements that men do, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. But obviously some can, and those women have every right to serve on the frontlines.Also WHAT?Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:26:17 PMThey obviously do exist, or else there wouldn't need to be a bar on women serving in combat roles in the first placeThis does not make sense. Do you think women being noncombatants is some kind of millennia-old conspiracy to keep the fairer sex down because "fuck women" or something?QuoteIf literally no woman could pass the same requirements that men do, then this wouldn't even be a discussion.Based on what logic?QuoteBut obviously some can, It's really not obvious at all, considering we haven't seen these women yet.
They obviously do exist, or else there wouldn't need to be a bar on women serving in combat roles in the first place. If literally no woman could pass the same requirements that men do, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. But obviously some can, and those women have every right to serve on the frontlines.
They obviously do exist, or else there wouldn't need to be a bar on women serving in combat roles in the first place
If literally no woman could pass the same requirements that men do, then this wouldn't even be a discussion.
But obviously some can,
You're not born believing in a creed or religion. Your gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality are fixed.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:31:47 PMI'm not appealing to the law, I'm saying that in a moral society, no one can be treated differently under the law.I've already explained where that right comes from ad nauseum. No one can choose how they're born, which means everyone born in a society has the same legal rights and priveleges as anyone else born in that society.That's fucking stupid though.What do varying birth conditions have to do with inherent rights? You said earlier that the mentally disabled don't have the right to serve.What if I'm born without arms? Do I have the right to be a police officer because I didn't choose to be born without arms?
I'm not appealing to the law, I'm saying that in a moral society, no one can be treated differently under the law.I've already explained where that right comes from ad nauseum. No one can choose how they're born, which means everyone born in a society has the same legal rights and priveleges as anyone else born in that society.
And yes, if a mentally retarded person passed every test and requirement that's required to enlist, it would be wrong to deny him that.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:26:17 PMThey obviously do exist, or else there wouldn't need to be a bar on women serving in combat roles in the first place. If literally no woman could pass the same requirements that men do, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. But obviously some can, and those women have every right to serve on the frontlines.That's not a right, though. You've said you don't support changing tests or standards, so I'm not sure what you're even arguing here.
>sexuality>fixedidentarians leave.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:32:43 PMYou're not born believing in a creed or religion. Your gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality are fixed.I still see no good reason as to why they should be allowed to be discriminated against.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:40:06 PMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 03, 2016, 11:35:34 PMQuote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:26:17 PMThey obviously do exist, or else there wouldn't need to be a bar on women serving in combat roles in the first place. If literally no woman could pass the same requirements that men do, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. But obviously some can, and those women have every right to serve on the frontlines.That's not a right, though. You've said you don't support changing tests or standards, so I'm not sure what you're even arguing here.Oh my god. This is not hard. You have the RIGHT to not be discriminated against by the government. I don't support changing tests, I support the upholding of the current tests. If a woman and a man have identical marks on their sheets, passed the same tests, can carry the same amount of weight, and only the man is allowed to serve in combat, that's discrimination.There is more to the requirements of combat than meeting physical test standards.This is pretty well-understood.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 03, 2016, 11:35:34 PMQuote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:26:17 PMThey obviously do exist, or else there wouldn't need to be a bar on women serving in combat roles in the first place. If literally no woman could pass the same requirements that men do, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. But obviously some can, and those women have every right to serve on the frontlines.That's not a right, though. You've said you don't support changing tests or standards, so I'm not sure what you're even arguing here.Oh my god. This is not hard. You have the RIGHT to not be discriminated against by the government. I don't support changing tests, I support the upholding of the current tests. If a woman and a man have identical marks on their sheets, passed the same tests, can carry the same amount of weight, and only the man is allowed to serve in combat, that's discrimination.
They shouldn't, but being free from discrimination based on something you chose for yourself isn't as important as being free from discrimination based on something you didn't ask for.
If a woman and a man have identical marks on their sheets, passed the same tests, can carry the same amount of weight, and only the man is allowed to serve in combat, that's discrimination.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:42:01 PMAre you still stuck in the 90s or some shit? You're born gay or straight.Muh current year lmaohttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay-and-lesbian-well-being/201105/sexual-orientation-is-it-unchangeablehttps://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730310-100-sexuality-is-fluid-its-time-to-get-past-born-this-way/https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/07/24/not-born-this-way-genes-suggest-sexual-orientation-fluid-not-fixed-trait/Identarian sexuality is merely the result of an attempt to harness and politicize sexuality as a subversive tool. Sexuality was not understood as rigid and unchanging until very recently.
Are you still stuck in the 90s or some shit? You're born gay or straight.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:40:06 PMIf a woman and a man have identical marks on their sheets, passed the same tests, can carry the same amount of weight, and only the man is allowed to serve in combat, that's discrimination.Alrighty, but that has nothing to do with my original response arguing against your claim that avoiding discrimination is more important than combat effectiveness. Arguments against women in combat are substantially deeper than PT test scores. Discrimination for discrimination's sake is bad. Of course. That isn't what is happening, though.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:45:01 PMBut if you're going to pull the "our noble soldiers cant concentrate on killing the enemy when theres boobies around them" card, then you can fuck right off.You haven't explained why that's wrong, though. Just that you don't like the argument.
But if you're going to pull the "our noble soldiers cant concentrate on killing the enemy when theres boobies around them" card, then you can fuck right off.
You have shown nothing to prove the idea that organized discrimination is better than a bad military.
You have shown nothing to dissuade the fact that organized discrimination is worse than a bad military.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:54:59 PMYou have shown nothing to prove the idea that organized discrimination is better than a bad military.YouTube
Quote from: SecondClass on April 03, 2016, 11:54:59 PMYou have shown nothing to dissuade the fact that organized discrimination is worse than a bad military.lolIs this just a tacit admission that women in infantry degrade effectiveness? If you can't figure out why that's not worth saving a few hurt feelings, then this discussion isn't worth having. The ban shouldn't exist, but the schools shouldn't change, which they have every time this comes up.
Where were you when equality won?
