25
   

Should There Be a Draft? Should Women Register For It?

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 10:58 am
@Brandon9000,
You deserve no answer from me 9000 since you won't answer my questions. This is a thread about women being drafted and largely about women serving in active war-fighter roles.

Sinking ships have nothing to do with drafts. You can ignore having female crew members, or tailor the question however you want to, but it's meaningless. It's not relevant.

You can start a sinking ship thread if you like, and interested people can follow you there, don't derail this thread.

T
K
O
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 11:02 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

My question remains unanswered. In that situation, would you go to the captain or some other officer and complain that men ought to be seated too? Please just answer. I can hardly think of a more important example of the principle, since your life might depend on it. I favor a lifestyle in which men view themselves as protectors of women, when it comes to physical safetly. You apparently don't. Okay, so what would you personally do in that situation, if it were announced that only or primarily women and children would be seated in an inadequate number of lifeboats?


No, I don't view men as protectors of women. That's a condescending attitude and one that posits that women can't protect themselves. I know a few women who would knock your block off for suggesting that, Brandon.

Why should we focus on your bullshit question? It has nothing to do with the actual topic, for it's a hypothetical situation which is not related to the question of whether or not you think women should be in the draft.

Cycloptichorn

Since you are reluctant to tell us how your opinions would influence your actions in a hypothetical situation in which it mattered, I'll answer for you. If you were on a lifeboat with an inadequate number of lifeboats, and it was announced that they would seat women and children first, you would either go and argue that you and the other men deserve an equal chance, or else you would wish to do so, but be cowed at the prospect looking like a wimp in public. I infer this from your stated position and your decision not to answer. Feel free to tell me if my conclusion is inaccurate.


Brandon, this has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. Why are you so caught up on this ancillary point?

It's immaterial to me what you want to 'infer' from my request that we stay on topic. It seems quite obvious that you are unwilling to engage the meat of your opponent's arguments - that women are equal members of our society, and that brings with it responsibilities as well as rights.

Cycloptichorn
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 11:02 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

You deserve no answer from me 9000 since you won't answer my questions. This is a thread about women being drafted and largely about women serving in active war-fighter roles.

Sinking ships have nothing to do with drafts. You can ignore having female crew members, or tailor the question however you want to, but it's meaningless. It's not relevant.

You can start a sinking ship thread if you like, and interested people can follow you there, don't derail this thread.

T
K
O

The position you are taking would seem to be posited on the opinion that men ought not to be obligated to protect women, so my hypothetical is completely pertinent. If you are the enlightened person who is in the right, then why are you embarassed to discuss your position publicly as it applies to you personally?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 11:07 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

My question remains unanswered. In that situation, would you go to the captain or some other officer and complain that men ought to be seated too? Please just answer. I can hardly think of a more important example of the principle, since your life might depend on it. I favor a lifestyle in which men view themselves as protectors of women, when it comes to physical safetly. You apparently don't. Okay, so what would you personally do in that situation, if it were announced that only or primarily women and children would be seated in an inadequate number of lifeboats?


No, I don't view men as protectors of women. That's a condescending attitude and one that posits that women can't protect themselves. I know a few women who would knock your block off for suggesting that, Brandon.

Why should we focus on your bullshit question? It has nothing to do with the actual topic, for it's a hypothetical situation which is not related to the question of whether or not you think women should be in the draft.

Cycloptichorn

Since you are reluctant to tell us how your opinions would influence your actions in a hypothetical situation in which it mattered, I'll answer for you. If you were on a lifeboat with an inadequate number of lifeboats, and it was announced that they would seat women and children first, you would either go and argue that you and the other men deserve an equal chance, or else you would wish to do so, but be cowed at the prospect looking like a wimp in public. I infer this from your stated position and your decision not to answer. Feel free to tell me if my conclusion is inaccurate.


Brandon, this has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. Why are you so caught up on this ancillary point?

It's immaterial to me what you want to 'infer' from my request that we stay on topic. It seems quite obvious that you are unwilling to engage the meat of your opponent's arguments - that women are equal members of our society, and that brings with it responsibilities as well as rights.

Cycloptichorn

I am willing to engage the issue, at least up to the point that I am willing to waste my day here doing this, but first things first. It is my opinion that you are embarassed to really make your position, as it applies to you personally, clear. If you weren't, you would take three minutes to respond to a simple hypothetical.

No matter. I have chosen the traditional view that between the two genders, men ought to be the specialists in protection from physical harm, and ought to make a special effort to keep women safe. You prefer a different lifestyle. Okay. This is only a lifestyle preference issue, but I will, of course, try to persuade people that my choice is a better one.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 11:45 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:

I have chosen the traditional view that between the two genders,
men ought to be the specialists in protection from physical harm,
and ought to make a special effort to keep women safe.

U talked ME into it, Brandon.
I also extend that to boys.
Truth be told, EVERY citizen who is able to lift and aim a gun
shoud be able to defend himself or herself,
on an emergency basis, at a split second 's notice.
http://www.impactguns.com/store/022188614909.html

His or her life might depend on it.


Chix are too cute and beautiful to draft.
We are neither cute nor beautiful and we are expendable.





David
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 11:48 am
@Brandon9000,
Embarrassed for what position, Brandon? I haven't taken a position on your stupid, nonsensical analogy. But, just so you'll shut the **** up about it, I'll make my position clear: I don't care if it's men, women or children in the lifeboats, I would never ask for someone else to be taken out so that I could be saved. It's an asinine thing for you to even accuse anyone of, Brandon. I've lived a long and happy life, and if someone has to go down with the ship, it might as well be me. It has nothing to do with gender.

Your position is one that treats women as unequal players in our society. I wonder if you let the women in your life know how much you pity them and how weak you believe they are. I doubt they would appreciate your attitude.

Yes, w0men should be put in the draft if it is to exist. There is no objective reason not to do so; only prejudicial reasons, which seek to remove women's equality.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Oct, 2008 11:58 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

You deserve no answer from me 9000 since you won't answer my questions. This is a thread about women being drafted and largely about women serving in active war-fighter roles.

Sinking ships have nothing to do with drafts. You can ignore having female crew members, or tailor the question however you want to, but it's meaningless. It's not relevant.

You can start a sinking ship thread if you like, and interested people can follow you there, don't derail this thread.

T
K
O

The position you are taking would seem to be posited on the opinion that men ought not to be obligated to protect women, so my hypothetical is completely pertinent. If you are the enlightened person who is in the right, then why are you embarassed to discuss your position publicly as it applies to you personally?

1) Your hypothetical is not pertinent.
2) Your hypothetical has been answered thoroughly.

I have no embarrassment discussing any of my views. You, however, will NOT answer my questions. What are you so afraid to say? What are YOU so embarrassed of?

Since you like to extrapolate my answer instead of reading the one I provide, I'll return the favor.

The position you are taking would seem to be posited on the opinion that only men are obligated to protect women, and never both or the opposite. In the face of a serious wartime threat, when we need more troops, you would opposed a draft on females because in your mind not being drafted is on par with giving someone a seat on a lifeboat.

Given the options you've laid out, as a man, I can either put women and children in the boat or I can fight to get on the boat myself. The actions as you have designed translate as the following.

Women & Children First - A view that men protect women. For that matter, the notion that this act is more noble than any other situation where you might put someone else's life before your own independent of gender. In your mind, the view that women and children should be put in a priority role in the face of crisis means by extrapolation that you cannot support women and men having equal responsibility in a draft situation.

Everyone for Themselves - A view that a man should, in the face of danger, attempt to board the boat before a woman or child. The view is exclusive to men, the same rule could not be applied in reverse. In your mind, if a man were to act in this way, he would be doing so out of some sort of cowardice and simply justifying it with some argument about fairness or equality. The idea that the only way one could ever support a gender neutral draft is to additionally support the notion that you deserve on that boat just as much as the women and children.

Man o man, that second one sounds pretty rough, huh? Problem is 9000, you've created a false dilemma. I can most certainly support both getting women and children to lifeboats first, and support a gender neutral draft. You know why? Because they are two entirely different things. Completely unrelated.

Your false dilemma is entirely irrelevant. If we were to follow its logic, then we should eject all our women who are currently in the military out.

Women in the military. Whether they carry a rifle, drive a hummer, operate a radar tower, operate a gun, treat a wound, fly a helicopter, or any other number of tasks that you seem to think are exclusively the role for men to fill, it shouldn't be so damn threatening to your sense of pride,ego, or macho. Why you act so insecure is beyond me.

Why are you so embarrassed?

T
K
O?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The US and the Draft - Discussion by tsarstepan
Deleted Draft - Question by gollum
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 02:59:13