Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:01:44 AMI just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.Based on what?This certainly wasn't something that the more developed classical societies considered important. Or the antique civilizations. Or medieval. Or Renaissance. Really, nobody felt that way until the self-righteous Enlightenment writers showed up with their revisionist history and ideological violence.
I just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:13:43 AMEveryone was morally bankrupt in ancient history.LMAO HOLY SHITIS THIS LIKE THE SECULAR MORAL VERSION OF LUTHERANISM
Everyone was morally bankrupt in ancient history.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:01:44 AMI just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:01:44 AMI just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.It's certainly not the most integral cornerstone of a prosperous society.
If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:19:35 AMIf one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.It's not a legal privilege, it's a specific job the the government specifically is looking for men to fill.Kind of like if a tv show is looking for a female to fill a host position.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:18:35 AMRomans had slaves. Aztecs sacrificed people. Early European empires pillaged, burned, raped, and executed people who didn't follow their will.And all of these things were perfectly acceptable in the moral systems they were brought up in.Just like they are completely unacceptable in the moral system you have been raised in, which you are adamant in defending and for some reason refuse to question for even a moment.
Romans had slaves. Aztecs sacrificed people. Early European empires pillaged, burned, raped, and executed people who didn't follow their will.
Quote from: Memerick on April 04, 2016, 02:17:36 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:01:44 AMI just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.Pseudo? Literally what?This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.
Quote from: Memerick on April 04, 2016, 02:23:52 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:19:35 AMIf one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.It's not a legal privilege, it's a specific job the the government specifically is looking for men to fill.Kind of like if a tv show is looking for a female to fill a host position.Not at all. Government jobs are legal privelges.Game shows are private enterprises.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:19:35 AMQuote from: Memerick on April 04, 2016, 02:17:36 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:01:44 AMI just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.Pseudo? Literally what?This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:24:59 AMQuote from: Memerick on April 04, 2016, 02:23:52 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:19:35 AMIf one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.It's not a legal privilege, it's a specific job the the government specifically is looking for men to fill.Kind of like if a tv show is looking for a female to fill a host position.Not at all. Government jobs are legal privelges.Game shows are private enterprises.What makes them so different? Both are looking for people to fill a role to get the best results they can.
Quote from: CIS on April 04, 2016, 02:26:30 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:19:35 AMQuote from: Memerick on April 04, 2016, 02:17:36 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:01:44 AMI just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.Pseudo? Literally what?This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces. Doesn't matter. The military isn't some existential void where the tenets of morality cease to apply.People are making a moral issue into one of tangible military effectiveness. Why should we sacrifice the inherent good of doing the right thing for fleetingly making our ridiculously powerful military more powerful?
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:25:46 AMI don't think anyone here actually does. Maybe Kenny. I'm a Christian, so my moral system is based on that.The point is that you are wrapped up in the supposed righteousness of an arbitrary and relatively young moral system. Your arrogance in flaunting it is ridiculous. I doubt you've ever even taken the time to seriously ask yourself on what basis rights exist, how you get from "You are born a certain way so things are obviously out of your hands" to "that means people have a right to equal treatment and freedoms".
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:29:35 AMQuote from: CIS on April 04, 2016, 02:26:30 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:19:35 AMQuote from: Memerick on April 04, 2016, 02:17:36 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:01:44 AMI just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.Pseudo? Literally what?This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces. Doesn't matter. The military isn't some existential void where the tenets of morality cease to apply.People are making a moral issue into one of tangible military effectiveness. Why should we sacrifice the inherent good of doing the right thing for fleetingly making our ridiculously powerful military more powerful?Why is lowering the physical standards for female combatants the right thing to do? As I said earlier, militaries aren't equal opportunity employers.
Quote from: CIS on April 04, 2016, 02:32:33 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:29:35 AMQuote from: CIS on April 04, 2016, 02:26:30 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:19:35 AMQuote from: Memerick on April 04, 2016, 02:17:36 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:01:44 AMI just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.Pseudo? Literally what?This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces. Doesn't matter. The military isn't some existential void where the tenets of morality cease to apply.People are making a moral issue into one of tangible military effectiveness. Why should we sacrifice the inherent good of doing the right thing for fleetingly making our ridiculously powerful military more powerful?Why is lowering the physical standards for female combatants the right thing to do? As I said earlier, militaries aren't equal opportunity employers.Holy shit, the standards shouldn't be lowered. I've only said that a dozen times ITT, and I've never advocated lowering standards whatsoever.
Quote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:37:29 AMQuote from: CIS on April 04, 2016, 02:32:33 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:29:35 AMQuote from: CIS on April 04, 2016, 02:26:30 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:19:35 AMQuote from: Memerick on April 04, 2016, 02:17:36 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:01:44 AMI just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.Pseudo? Literally what?This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces. Doesn't matter. The military isn't some existential void where the tenets of morality cease to apply.People are making a moral issue into one of tangible military effectiveness. Why should we sacrifice the inherent good of doing the right thing for fleetingly making our ridiculously powerful military more powerful?Why is lowering the physical standards for female combatants the right thing to do? As I said earlier, militaries aren't equal opportunity employers.Holy shit, the standards shouldn't be lowered. I've only said that a dozen times ITT, and I've never advocated lowering standards whatsoever.Then what are you screaming about? I usually just skim over most people's posts.
Quote from: CIS on April 04, 2016, 02:39:20 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:37:29 AMQuote from: CIS on April 04, 2016, 02:32:33 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:29:35 AMQuote from: CIS on April 04, 2016, 02:26:30 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:19:35 AMQuote from: Memerick on April 04, 2016, 02:17:36 AMQuote from: SecondClass on April 04, 2016, 02:01:44 AMI just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.Pseudo? Literally what?This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces. Doesn't matter. The military isn't some existential void where the tenets of morality cease to apply.People are making a moral issue into one of tangible military effectiveness. Why should we sacrifice the inherent good of doing the right thing for fleetingly making our ridiculously powerful military more powerful?Why is lowering the physical standards for female combatants the right thing to do? As I said earlier, militaries aren't equal opportunity employers.Holy shit, the standards shouldn't be lowered. I've only said that a dozen times ITT, and I've never advocated lowering standards whatsoever.Then what are you screaming about? I usually just skim over most people's posts.If a woman does everything a man has to do to enlist in combat roles, she should be in a combat role no questions asked.
One is a direct representation of America, the legal system, and the government. What happens reflects on the nation as a whole.
Where were you when equality won?
