LustfulAngel wrote...
I'm not a preacher, I'm an intellectual there's a difference.
An intellectual would post facts, statistics, articles, studies, etc. You've just repeated the talking points of an inane philosophy that is almost lost to antiquity.
How many women do you expect to be able to sufficiently serve in the military?
What can they provide the front line forces that they didn't have before?
Easily the majority of women can "serve sufficiently" otherwise they wouldn't be accepted into the military in the first place. If you can't do the job, they don't keep you around.
They bring nothing extra to the military simply because they are women. Instead, as individuals we are gaining valuable personnel who can full the roles. If a woman is in "motor T" which is the group of jobs that deals with servicing and repairing the vehicles in the military and she can rebuild an engine block like anybody else. There isn't a reason to discriminate because of her gender BECAUSE she can do the job. Again, I'll reiterate, if a person can perform the job then there isn't a reason to not let them do it.
If you were skilled at a particular job you associate with women. Why should we ignore what you're skilled at because of some outdated gender role?
We have a government that has denied basic human rights to its unborn children. Hell, it doesn't even classify them as humans(But what else could they be?)
And now this, is it really equal? If it really were equality, there wouldn't be a need to make it a policy. If it really were equality, then we wouldn't have prevented such from occurring in the first place.
The prevention was put into place, precisely because its not equal. You have tasked the American Woman with the job of killing, the job of forgoing her emotions and abandoning her family.
If this is equality, then there's no such thing as inequality.
I'm not touching abortion with a 20ft pole. So if you want to talk about that, go make another thread or go join some pro-life forum. I've said my piece in the past and I've decided to leave it at that because nobody on either side will ever agree with my. If you want to talk equality between adults, then do it but, don't muddy the water by trying to drag abortion into this.
Don't make me laugh, you really think giving the military more cannon fooder in the name of female soldiers is going to stop this inept government from launching war?
The L/libertarian view on war is irrelevant to the gender composition in the military. Libertarians and libertarians alike disdain war and appose wars of aggression.
Let's look at a real, physical example: President Obama betrayed and abused the War Crimes Resolution in his war in Libya, yet he wasn't impeached.
The same congress utterly incapable of fulfilling its own laws, is going to protect the women of this country? The same Congress that, on the mere heresay of a supposed Iranian operation was more than prepared to go to war?
Again, I reference to that quote above. The last thing this policy does is prevent war, in fact, it's an increase in troops in preparation for war!
Libertarians oppose any war of aggression against another nation. In simple terms, Libertarians do not like war. What this congress and many others before it as well as various presidents in the last century have done is irrelevant to the discussion on women in the military. Again you muddy the water of this conversation by dragging anything you can remotely tie to the conversation in your desperate hopes to bury me in a tidal wave of irrelevance.
I've asked you before and again and I'm not asking for your political opinion, I'm asking for a subjective observation: What benefit is there to women joining the military, the front lines? With men, the observation was that men would learn discipline, self respect and honor. However, as noted by many feminists, females have those qualities already.
What do we gain from women in the military? Why not phrase it, what do we gain from allowing blacks into the military, or Asians, or Hispanics. The way you phrase the question implies there is a difference. Rather than questioning their gender, we should ask if they can get the job done which is all that should matter. If you're a man and can't get the job done, then get out and do something else. If a woman can't get the job done, then get out and do something else.
We want a prosperous, healthy womanhood in the work force. What we don't want, is women working desperately just for the sake of work. That's the difference between you and me now.
You want women in figurative cages while I believe it's the right of every adult to determine their own destiny. You keep pressing for the status quo of gender roles. I'm stating that gender is irrelevant as I'm looking at the individual level of "can they do the job".
Now, I've laid out history behind one of humanity's most tragic eras. Having blurred the colors between good and bad, you have two choices: A: Call me a Nazi(My bets are 80% on this) or B: Acknowledge that no one is ever righteous in wartime.
I'm going to go with C: and be amused at how obviously you skimmed a quick article or two on WW2 and how little you truly understand of the machinations that lead to WW2.
This is history, a lot more complicated than you're used to I know.
This coming from someone who oversimplified WW2. I'm choking on the irony.
And so why? Because they can? That doesn't make logical sense. Much the same as it doesn't make sense that as a world, we as humans have failed to get rid of this system called war to begin with. Indeed, here's a true end game:
By eliminating war, that would thereby eliminate the need for women to have to fight in wars. Would you argue then, Fiery?
See this quote? This is you pontificating. Stop it. You're going from one topic to a diatribe on how we as a species have failed to eliminate war.
I reiterate, we gain nothing from women because there isn't much of a difference between men and women. Yeah, yeah you can go on and on about how men are inclined to produce more muscle mass and women tend to be shorter than men but, that isn't enough to exclude women wholesale when individuals can perform their roles in the military as equal to or even better than some men.
There isn't a reason we should handicap ourselves by not using the best of our resources?
Nope, I know it probably shocks you but there are people who actually disagree.
I'm not shocked that people disagree as it's quite common for people to disagree with me. Whitelion, Gibbous, flaser are some fine gentlemen and scholars who disagree with me quite often. However, what I am shocked about is how someone can actually believe the dreck that spews forth from your head and onto the internet. You actually make me concerned that there is a mentally ill person out there who isn't taking his medication.
I merely wish to merge Old Europe with some of the more acceptable principles of our modern era. By eliminating this idea of "equality at all costs", and allowing our citizens to prosper in the areas where they're the best. The American Nation will recover from its moral and economic brink of death.
Just be honest, you think women should just be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. When you have enough integrity to openly admit your little fantasy, we can put this to rest and I can go back to grinding out combo's in Street Fighter.
Some women might be able to prosper as soldiers, I'd rather them prosper as firefighters or police at the worst.
But, but the apocalypse will happen! Women might die! What possible good could come from letting our little songbirds out of their cages!!?!?!?!
Now, you've become a hypocrite. You opposed women in the military because "women might die" and "what possible good would come from it" to accepting women in an arguably more dangerous position because "they might be able to prosper".