LustfulAngel wrote...
I thought you were smarter than Loli to resort to semantics. Who is keeping Women in a cage? Once upon a time, we made this philosophical, political decision as to protect women. To men, it was once unbearable to imagine. Now to you its acceptable? As I said, once before and again: Degradation. The men themselves have lost pride.
Even with my extensive knowledge of history, I do not recall any civilization where women were "protected" outside of minor actions such as "women and children first". The Germanic tribes that fought against Rome fielded women amongst their ranks. Spartan women were expected to be as equally as strong as their men to act as the city-states protectors while the men were off fighting. No culture was ever built upon protecting women.
Women hold a higher value than men and always will, that's not my choice but their genetic design. Populations that were sexist towards female fetuses and/or where the idea of childbirth was looked down upon are declining.
Actually, western nations are the ones in decline. China (one of those nations that was "sexist") is actually doing much better than us in regards to populations with only a mild problem of gender ratio's coming to light which was already predicted decades ago that the ratio would be out of balance. This point is moot as Western nations with our apparent blasphemy against the sacred feminine are actually seeing an increase in female births. A society that apparently degrades women is actually allowing women to excel in areas beyond men. Perhaps you should
look into it.
Of course, the most important value of a woman is her motherhood, she teaches, she nurses, etc. Allowing women to thrive as they are is far from keeping them in a cage, in fact I'm letting the bird fly.
That's the cage we speak of. You expect women to ONLY fulfill the role of a mother, a nurse, a teacher. You arbitrarily restrict women from roles such as the military because some ill may befall them. By restricting them to certain gender roles (be a nurse, a teacher, avoid the military) you are placing them in a cage.
The only thing I'm not doing, is letting the baby chick fly before her wings are ready and some predator eats her alive. And if you think thats "Freedom", then we have different ideas about freedom.
Adult women are not "baby chicks". They are adults capable of reasoning and logic. It's their right and responsibility to live their lives as they see fit. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant.
In this liberal world of death, do tell me where there's a benefit? What rights are
Females getting that they didn't have before, and please spare the word "choice", I mean an actual benefit which is developing their lives.
Liberal world of death? I can't even take you seriously anymore. You make all Ron Paul supporters look bad by spouting this gibberish.
So tell me, what do you think will happen with just a few of those cases? I think whatever fabric of society is left will be ruined and of course, the supporters of this policy will be held to account.
Consequences, my friend. They exist and the consequence of this game of Russian Roulette are far too great. If America had a backbone, they would protest this policy but that too is long since gone.
This country will never have insomuch as another Vietnam revolution, never mind the other revolutions. The consequences of an apathetic citzenry, the death of America. There's no need for terrorists to continue their fight, america's moral decline has already been self-evident.
You got me, for a moment there I thought you were serious. The fabric of society is going to be torn asunder because we allowed women into combat positions. It's been a while since I fell for a troll, kudos to you my friend.
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
The military in fact, has such trouble recruiting members period that they offered scholarships and such. The sad thing, again, is you'll only see those benefits if you actually come out alive.
I know that's a blatant lie but, I'm not sure if it was intentional or just ignorance. The military is not having difficulty recruiting. They are actually rejecting people left and right because they have too many applicants and not enough spaces to fit them all. They are in such a good position with this flood of applicants, they can afford to be picky. I've seen people turned away from becoming enlisted because they didn't even have 1 semester of college under their belt. Everyone in my recruiting station (and I literally mean everyone) has some level of college under their belt. Anyone with just a high school diploma or G.E.D. is told to enroll in college until they have 20+ college credits then told to check back in.
They can have the freedom to do whatever they want, as long as they don't threaten the larger society and their own families with their choice. Those of us who conduct political policy have to think of society at large, not the whims of average Jane and Joe who can't even comprehend the meaning of policy.
There's that figurative cage again.
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
You present a false choice(IE: You act as though the females would be a bird in a glided choice). You know full well that I'm not going to choose option number two.
The only person presenting a false choice is yourself. You keep pressing that women should be "allowed" to be "free" "only if" they do certain "approved" actions.
some freedoms are better off not had.
That is not your choice to make. It is a decision best left to every soverign individual to decide for themselves. If you can't agree to that, then you're no libertarian.
I feel as though I'm arguing with drunkards who are defending their right to booze. Sure, kill your brain cells if you'd like but don't drink and drive and kill people in the process.
I feel like I'm arguing with either; someone is desperate need of psychiatric help or a solid platinum level troll.
If someone wants to booze themselves to death. It is a violation of their natural rights (i.e property rights over their body) to prevent them by force. As someone whose called himself a libertarian in the past, I felt you would have understood such an argument. Either you're not a libertarian, or you've somehow managed to forget what being a libertarian means in my absence.