@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?
