CSNbbs

(07-19-2021 04:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 04:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] Senate Democrats propose requiring women to register for military draft

I have a spin on this I think our progressive friends should have zero problem with, especially with their keenness on 'make up programs' without really wanting to call that 'discrimination.'

My proposal is that if this goes through, we exempt men for, say 12 years; that is since men have disproportionately and unfairly borne the cost of a previously sexist program for 40 years --- kind of making up for the systemic sexism and female privilege inherent in the program to this date.

I guess that would be akin to something like me proposing that 100% of the new coaching/front office hires in the NBA/NFL be minorities for the next 12 years to make up for previous imbalances? I will note that I have not and would not do that so your proposal is really apples to oranges.

How about saying that all females need to register, but only 25% of men do. That would make it right on target with the set asides you apparently have a big jonesing to do across the board.

I mean, you are a stalwart for just that type of reservation program for pro sports, you should be jumping on mine like a jackrabbit.

I am not in the military but I am assuming that there are jobs in the military that are best served by men (due to physical differences). I would listen to the military powers-that-be to guide me in that respect.

As stated, I am not aware of any mental differences between black people and white people that would make the former group more or less suited for front offices jobs. I am aware that OO has not definitely ruled out these brainpower differences but I don't think his proposal holds water personally.

Therefore your comparison remains, IMO, apples to oranges.

*edit* For those jobs in the military that can be covered by women, for sure I agree that including women in the draft makes sense.

(07-19-2021 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 04:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 04:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] Senate Democrats propose requiring women to register for military draft

I have a spin on this I think our progressive friends should have zero problem with, especially with their keenness on 'make up programs' without really wanting to call that 'discrimination.'

My proposal is that if this goes through, we exempt men for, say 12 years; that is since men have disproportionately and unfairly borne the cost of a previously sexist program for 40 years --- kind of making up for the systemic sexism and female privilege inherent in the program to this date.

I guess that would be akin to something like me proposing that 100% of the new coaching/front office hires in the NBA/NFL be minorities for the next 12 years to make up for previous imbalances? I will note that I have not and would not do that so your proposal is really apples to oranges.

How about saying that all females need to register, but only 25% of men do. That would make it right on target with the set asides you apparently have a big jonesing to do across the board.

I mean, you are a stalwart for just that type of reservation program for pro sports, you should be jumping on mine like a jackrabbit.

I am not in the military but I am assuming that there are jobs in the military that are best served by men (due to physical differences). I would listen to the military powers-that-be to guide me in that respect.

As stated, I am not aware of any mental differences between black people and white people that would make the former group more or less suited for front offices jobs. I am aware that OO has not definitely ruled out these brainpower differences but I don't think his proposal holds water personally.

Therefore your comparison remains, IMO, apples to oranges.

*edit* For those jobs in the military that can be covered by women, for sure I agree that including women in the draft makes sense.

Name one position in the military that is men-only.

Name one position in the military that is 'if you are a man you have a better score in the application'.

I can think of only one -- but the restriction isnt because of physical issues. Serving on a nuclear submarine -- either fast attack or boomer.

After you answer no to both of the above, I want to see some more dance moves on why my proposal is so distinctly different than the set aside that you like and promote.

You seemingly think that 'for those jobs' is quite the significant delimiter.

Last men and women were in and among even the topmost level entrance paths into the military in general -- that is cadets at West Point, Air Force Academy, and Annapolis. Do you make the same distinction for those programs that limits women's participation in any aspect of those training beds?

Im just using the typical progo rationale on other things that they clamor for on set asides and reservations to the entrance of women into the draft.

You and I both agree that women should be draft-eligible. The issue isnt that my friend, the issue is putting in your progressive style set asides because of past imbalances.

(07-19-2021 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 04:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 04:26 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] Senate Democrats propose requiring women to register for military draft

I have a spin on this I think our progressive friends should have zero problem with, especially with their keenness on 'make up programs' without really wanting to call that 'discrimination.'

My proposal is that if this goes through, we exempt men for, say 12 years; that is since men have disproportionately and unfairly borne the cost of a previously sexist program for 40 years --- kind of making up for the systemic sexism and female privilege inherent in the program to this date.

I guess that would be akin to something like me proposing that 100% of the new coaching/front office hires in the NBA/NFL be minorities for the next 12 years to make up for previous imbalances? I will note that I have not and would not do that so your proposal is really apples to oranges.

How about saying that all females need to register, but only 25% of men do. That would make it right on target with the set asides you apparently have a big jonesing to do across the board.

I mean, you are a stalwart for just that type of reservation program for pro sports, you should be jumping on mine like a jackrabbit.

I am not in the military but I am assuming that there are jobs in the military that are best served by men (due to physical differences). I would listen to the military powers-that-be to guide me in that respect.

As stated, I am not aware of any mental differences between black people and white people that would make the former group more or less suited for front offices jobs. I am aware that OO has not definitely ruled out these brainpower differences but I don't think his proposal holds water personally.

Therefore your comparison remains, IMO, apples to oranges.

*edit* For those jobs in the military that can be covered by women, for sure I agree that including women in the draft makes sense.

Name one position in the military that is men-only.

Did you see above (bolded) where I said I wasn't familiar enough with the inner workings of the military to determine which jobs are equally appropriate for men/women? I'd have to have people with military expertise tell me that.

Quote:Name one position in the military that is 'if you are a man you have a better score in the application'.

See above.

Quote:I can think of only one -- but the restriction isnt because of physical issues. Serving on a nuclear submarine -- either fast attack or boomer.

There may be specific positions that require a level of physical strength that would make men more suitable than women. I'm not sure. Are many women able to complete the requirements for Navy SEAL training for instance?

Quote:After you answer no to both of the above, I want to see some more dance moves on why my proposal is so distinctly different than the set aside that you like and promote.

If you are telling me (or people with actual insight in the requirements of various military positions) that women can basically serve every role in the military then I would certainly support a 50/50% gender split in a future draft.

Quote:You seemingly think that 'for those jobs' is quite the significant delimiter.

I don't think that. As I thought I had made clear, I don't know.

Quote:Last men and women were in and among even the topmost level entrance paths into the military in general -- that is cadets at West Point, Air Force Academy, and Annapolis. Do you make the same distinction for those programs that limits women's participation in any aspect of those training beds?

See above.

Quote:Im just using the typical progo rationale on other things that they clamor for on set asides and reservations to the entrance of women into the draft.

I'm sorry to disappoint you that I don't agree with your original proposal.

Quote:You and I both agree that women should be draft-eligible. The issue isnt that my friend, the issue is putting in your progressive style set asides because of past imbalances.

Well... as stated I have never asked for every front office person going forward to be black so your original proposal doesn't fly.

I'm all for equality in the military and that includes the draft. I grew up on military bases and I don't remember any positions held by my dad or my friends' dads that a woman couldn't have performed.

It seems that you are eager to put words in my mouth or simply just to argue.

Physical differences affect lots of jobs.

My son once thought about becoming a firefighter. I read the physical requirements. For a man, the requirements were something like “ able to carry 150 pounds 120 yards in 17 seconds.” The requirement for a woman was something like “ able to carry 110 pounds 90 yards in 21 seconds”

Somebody tell me it makes no difference which one is sent into,the burning house to carry YOU out.

BTW, my “proposal” is that we have no evidence to support any theoretical difference OR to support the theory of no difference whatsoever.

93 gets what I say wrong a lot.

(07-19-2021 06:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]If you are telling me (or people with actual insight in the requirements of various military positions) that women can basically serve every role in the military then I would certainly support a 50/50% gender split in a future draft.

That isnt the issue pardner.

Quote:

Quote:Im just using the typical progo rationale on other things that they clamor for on set asides and reservations to the entrance of women into the draft.

I'm sorry to disappoint you that I don't agree with your original proposal.

Funny that. All jackrabbit ready for one 'set aside a certain amount based on past restriction', but against another 'set aside a certain amount based on past restriction.'

Funny that. So you *are* for race based set asides and race based discrimination for sports. But, not for the same based on sex in the military.

Seriously, you preach on how since blacks are excluded from sports jobs, then based on that systemic racism pablum that is your stock phrase, they should have a set aside for them.

Great --- if women are put up for the draft, then since the systemic sexism that permeated the military process for countless years then women should be ensured of say, 75% of the places in any draft and men 25%.

Quote:Well... as stated I have never asked for every front office person going forward to be black so your original proposal doesn't fly.

Perhaps you should read closer. I did change that, mind you. But somehow you now want to repeat that first comment as predicate.

Quote:It seems that you are eager to put words in my mouth (whine omitted).

Funny you just did that with me, if you didnt notice it then.

(07-19-2021 07:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 06:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]If you are telling me (or people with actual insight in the requirements of various military positions) that women can basically serve every role in the military then I would certainly support a 50/50% gender split in a future draft.

That isnt the issue pardner.

Quote:

Quote:Im just using the typical progo rationale on other things that they clamor for on set asides and reservations to the entrance of women into the draft.

I'm sorry to disappoint you that I don't agree with your original proposal.

Funny that. All jackrabbit ready for one 'set aside a certain amount based on past restriction', but against another 'set aside a certain amount based on past restriction.'

Funny that. So you *are* for race based set asides and race based discrimination for sports. But, not for the same based on sex in the military.

Seriously, you preach on how since blacks are excluded from sports jobs, then based on that systemic racism pablum that is your stock phrase, they should have a set aside for them.

Great --- if women are put up for the draft, then since the systemic sexism that permeated the military process for countless years then women should be ensured of say, 75% of the places in any draft and men 25%.

So if one believes that affirmative action makes sense then one must also believe that 75% of any upcoming military draft should be composed of women?

Trying to force this point seems ridiculous to me. Again, it is apples and oranges when it comes to these situations. For one thing, the intentions behind excluding women from the military historically and the intentions from excluding black people from front office positions are likely different. One was benign if paternalistic (we need to protect our women) while the other was malignant (racism).

A reasonable argument could have been made historically that women are less capable of men of carrying out some of a soldier’s duties. This argument likely holds less and less water as women have proven themselves physically and as technology has evened the playing field. No reasonable argument could be made (sorry, OO) that black people were less capable of white people when it comes to performing front office jobs.

Quote:Well... as stated I have never asked for every front office person going forward to be black so your original proposal doesn't fly.
[quote]

Perhaps you should read closer. I did change that, mind you. But somehow you now want to repeat that first comment as predicate.

It really doesn’t matter if we are talking 51% of women in the draft, 75% or even 100%. It remains an apples to oranges comparison and just because one believes in one situation it doesn’t mean that the other surely follows.

(07-19-2021 06:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]If you are telling me (or people with actual insight in the requirements of various military positions) that women can basically serve every role in the military then I would certainly support a 50/50% gender split in a future draft.

They can't.

(07-19-2021 08:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 06:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]If you are telling me (or people with actual insight in the requirements of various military positions) that women can basically serve every role in the military then I would certainly support a 50/50% gender split in a future draft.

They can't.

That would be my uneducated guess. I’m not sure if Tanq disagrees with you or not.

(07-19-2021 07:53 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 07:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 06:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]If you are telling me (or people with actual insight in the requirements of various military positions) that women can basically serve every role in the military then I would certainly support a 50/50% gender split in a future draft.

That isnt the issue pardner.

Quote:

Quote:Im just using the typical progo rationale on other things that they clamor for on set asides and reservations to the entrance of women into the draft.

I'm sorry to disappoint you that I don't agree with your original proposal.

Funny that. All jackrabbit ready for one 'set aside a certain amount based on past restriction', but against another 'set aside a certain amount based on past restriction.'

Funny that. So you *are* for race based set asides and race based discrimination for sports. But, not for the same based on sex in the military.

Seriously, you preach on how since blacks are excluded from sports jobs, then based on that systemic racism pablum that is your stock phrase, they should have a set aside for them.

Great --- if women are put up for the draft, then since the systemic sexism that permeated the military process for countless years then women should be ensured of say, 75% of the places in any draft and men 25%.

So if one believes that affirmative action makes sense then one must also believe that 75% of any upcoming military draft should be composed of women?

Trying to force this point seems ridiculous to me. Again, it is apples and oranges when it comes to these situations. For one thing, the intentions behind excluding women from the military historically and the intentions from excluding black people from front office positions are likely different. One was benign if paternalistic (we need to protect our women) while the other was malignant (racism).

So you are okay with racial discrimination for the right reasons. That is all you have to say.

Okay with 'fair' racial/sexual discrimination, but very much against 'unfair' racial/sexual discrimination. Quite the bright line there.

Quote:

Quote:[quote]
Well... as stated I have never asked for every front office person going forward to be black so your original proposal doesn't fly.
[quote]

Perhaps you should read closer. I did change that, mind you. But somehow you now want to repeat that first comment as predicate.

It really doesn’t matter if we are talking 51% of women in the draft, 75% or even 100%. It remains an apples to oranges comparison and just because one believes in one situation it doesn’t mean that the other surely follows.

Again --- you are comfortable with 'fair' racial/sexual discrimination, but very much against 'unfair' racial/sexual discrimination. And again, quite the bright line there.

But thank you for clearing that up for us explicitly.

(07-19-2021 08:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 06:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]If you are telling me (or people with actual insight in the requirements of various military positions) that women can basically serve every role in the military then I would certainly support a 50/50% gender split in a future draft.

They can't.

That would be my uneducated guess. I’m not sure if Tanq disagrees with you or not.

I dont think I said 'every' role. Leave it to you to make that jump and make an inaccurate comment or pointed supposition about my position in that manner.

And, for the record, I think that everyone should be equally able to be drafted. No racial/sex-based set asides. Nor do I think that roles should be explicitly delineated for or against men/women, nor do I think we need to have x% of all (pick your group) set aside for any such group.

But again, I think that should apply across the board to every position -- including NFL/NBA sports management roles.

Some are for and actively and explicitly support fact-dependent racial discrimination. I am not. I always find it funny that the progs are the one for situational active racial/sexual discrimination. And I like to watch them dance to try and distinguish that position in an objective manner.

I like the jig 93 does with 'historically it was thought that women couldnt do it, so it was okay to deny them the ability to serve'.

Quote:A reasonable argument could have been made historically that women are less capable of men of carrying out some of a soldier’s duties. This argument likely holds less and less water as women have proven themselves physically and as technology has evened the playing field.

So you think that in the deep history women couldnt fight as equals in war? Did they magically make a genetic leap in only the last 30 years?

93, doesnt also seem to realize that one could also state that comments about 'historical viewpoints' and discriminatory actions on racial groups in the same manner.

Neither blacks, nor women, made astounding genetic leaps that corrected deficiencies in the last several thousand years, I would surmise. Yet 93 is comfortable with the 'historical viewpoint' as women being inferior as justifiable.

Women havent changed, 93. Viewpoints have. Same can be said for racial groups as well.

And no, I dont think that women 'magically' became the equal of men in the armed services role. History is replete with actions of women in combat -- for example I believe the most prolific sniper in World War 2 was a Soviet female.

But, I dont think 93 realizes how dicey his justification in 'well historically people thought women couldnt handle it, so that past is attitude okay'.

I mean, I was speaking with my female friends of mine about that and.....

(07-19-2021 08:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 06:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]If you are telling me (or people with actual insight in the requirements of various military positions) that women can basically serve every role in the military then I would certainly support a 50/50% gender split in a future draft.

They can't.

That would be my uneducated guess. I’m not sure if Tanq disagrees with you or not.

They have not shown the ability to be SEALs, for one thing. They can run computers, fly airplanes, do a lot of things well. But things requiring great strength are not their forte.

(07-19-2021 08:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 06:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]If you are telling me (or people with actual insight in the requirements of various military positions) that women can basically serve every role in the military then I would certainly support a 50/50% gender split in a future draft.

They can't.

That would be my uneducated guess. I’m not sure if Tanq disagrees with you or not.

I dont think I said 'every' role. Leave it to you to make that jump and make an inaccurate comment or pointed supposition about my position in that manner.

I said it was unclear to me if you agree or not (speaking of inaccurate comments about one's position).

I guess it seemed like you were thinking that there are very few roles women couldn't fill in the military when you typed the following:

"Name one position in the military that is men-only.

Name one position in the military that is 'if you are a man you have a better score in the application'.

I can think of only one -- but the restriction isnt because of physical issues. Serving on a nuclear submarine -- either fast attack or boomer."

It seemed like you disagreed with #'s based on those statements (I mean... you could only think of one single situation in ALL of the military) but I left open the possibility that you agreed.

Quote:And, for the record, I think that everyone should be equally able to be drafted. No racial/sex-based set asides. Nor do I think that roles should be explicitly delineated for or against men/women, nor do I think we need to have x% of all (pick your group) set aside for any such group.

But again, I think that should apply across the board to every position -- including NFL/NBA sports management roles.

Some are for and actively and explicitly support fact-dependent racial discrimination. I am not. I always find it funny that the progs are the one for situational active racial/sexual discrimination. And I like to watch them dance to try and distinguish that position in an objective manner.

If women are not physically capable of filling certain roles does that mean it is sexual discrimination when they aren't offered these roles? Do you think that military positions that require hand-to-hand combat are equally filled by women?

(07-19-2021 08:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I like the jig 93 does with 'historically it was thought that women couldnt do it, so it was okay to deny them the ability to serve'.

Tell me this... let's say it's 1941 and we have declared war on the Axis powers. Are you telling me that you believe that a near-100% female fighting force would have been just as succesful as our near-100% male fighting force was? Is that actually the argument that you are making? I'm fascinated if this is, in fact, your position.

Quote:

Quote:A reasonable argument could have been made historically that women are less capable of men of carrying out some of a soldier’s duties. This argument likely holds less and less water as women have proven themselves physically and as technology has evened the playing field.

So you think that in the deep history women couldnt fight as equals in war? Did they magically make a genetic leap in only the last 30 years?

I think that soldiering that required hand-to-hand combat favored men over women just based on average physical strength. Do you disagree?

Of course they haven't made a genetic leap, but the military has changed over the past 30 years. There is less reliance on boots-on-ground and more on drones, satellites, precision strikes, etc. This levels the playing fields to a great extent.

Quote:93, doesnt also seem to realize that one could also state that comments about 'historical viewpoints' and discriminatory actions on racial groups in the same manner.

Neither blacks, nor women, made astounding genetic leaps that corrected deficiencies in the last several thousand years, I would surmise. Yet 93 is comfortable with the 'historical viewpoint' as women being inferior as justifiable.

Still fascinated with the notion that you believe that women in the 40's were equal to men when it came to the fighting that was required.

Quote:Women havent changed, 93. Viewpoints have. Same can be said for racial groups as well.

And no, I dont think that women 'magically' became the equal of men in the armed services role. History is replete with actions of women in combat -- for example I believe the most prolific sniper in World War 2 was a Soviet female.

Again... please let me know if an all-women military would have won WWII or not. If you don't believe that they would have, why not? It really seems that you are arguing that they would have.

(07-19-2021 11:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 06:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]If you are telling me (or people with actual insight in the requirements of various military positions) that women can basically serve every role in the military then I would certainly support a 50/50% gender split in a future draft.

They can't.

That would be my uneducated guess. I’m not sure if Tanq disagrees with you or not.

I dont think I said 'every' role. Leave it to you to make that jump and make an inaccurate comment or pointed supposition about my position in that manner.

I said it was unclear to me if you agree or not (speaking of inaccurate comments about one's position).

I guess it seemed like you were thinking that there are very few roles women couldn't fill in the military when you typed the following:

"Name one position in the military that is men-only.

Name one position in the military that is 'if you are a man you have a better score in the application'.

I can think of only one -- but the restriction isnt because of physical issues. Serving on a nuclear submarine -- either fast attack or boomer."

It seemed like you disagreed with #'s based on those statements (I mean... you could only think of one single situation in ALL of the military) but I left open the possibility that you agreed.

If you actually read #s statement, as opposed to read what you want to read, he responded to *your* statement of : "that women can basically serve every role in the military ". They cant, due to the word that you used -- 'every.'

I actually agree specifically with #s that they cannot at the present.

Quote:

Quote:And, for the record, I think that everyone should be equally able to be drafted. No racial/sex-based set asides. Nor do I think that roles should be explicitly delineated for or against men/women, nor do I think we need to have x% of all (pick your group) set aside for any such group.

But again, I think that should apply across the board to every position -- including NFL/NBA sports management roles.

Some are for and actively and explicitly support fact-dependent racial discrimination. I am not. I always find it funny that the progs are the one for situational active racial/sexual discrimination. And I like to watch them dance to try and distinguish that position in an objective manner.

If women are not physically capable of filling certain roles does that mean it is sexual discrimination when they aren't offered these roles? Do you think that military positions that require hand-to-hand combat are equally filled by women?

That isnt the subject I brought up initially, is it? You are changing to that subject.

(07-20-2021 07:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 11:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]They can't.

That would be my uneducated guess. I’m not sure if Tanq disagrees with you or not.

I dont think I said 'every' role. Leave it to you to make that jump and make an inaccurate comment or pointed supposition about my position in that manner.

I said it was unclear to me if you agree or not (speaking of inaccurate comments about one's position).

I guess it seemed like you were thinking that there are very few roles women couldn't fill in the military when you typed the following:

"Name one position in the military that is men-only.

Name one position in the military that is 'if you are a man you have a better score in the application'.

I can think of only one -- but the restriction isnt because of physical issues. Serving on a nuclear submarine -- either fast attack or boomer."

It seemed like you disagreed with #'s based on those statements (I mean... you could only think of one single situation in ALL of the military) but I left open the possibility that you agreed.

If you actually read #s statement, as opposed to read what you want to read, he responded to *your* statement of : "that women can basically serve every role in the military ". They cant, due to the word that you used -- 'every.'

I actually agree specifically with #s that they cannot at the present.

Quote:

Quote:And, for the record, I think that everyone should be equally able to be drafted. No racial/sex-based set asides. Nor do I think that roles should be explicitly delineated for or against men/women, nor do I think we need to have x% of all (pick your group) set aside for any such group.

But again, I think that should apply across the board to every position -- including NFL/NBA sports management roles.

Some are for and actively and explicitly support fact-dependent racial discrimination. I am not. I always find it funny that the progs are the one for situational active racial/sexual discrimination. And I like to watch them dance to try and distinguish that position in an objective manner.

If women are not physically capable of filling certain roles does that mean it is sexual discrimination when they aren't offered these roles? Do you think that military positions that require hand-to-hand combat are equally filled by women?

That isnt the subject I brought up initially, is it? You are changing to that subject.

I’m trying to understand your position on the topic better.

The subject that you brought initially was that I should support 100% drafting of females in any upcoming military draft. You then modified that. That’s routine during a conversation.

I think my question is relevant to this discussion.

(07-20-2021 08:07 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2021 07:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 11:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]That would be my uneducated guess. I’m not sure if Tanq disagrees with you or not.

I dont think I said 'every' role. Leave it to you to make that jump and make an inaccurate comment or pointed supposition about my position in that manner.

I said it was unclear to me if you agree or not (speaking of inaccurate comments about one's position).

I guess it seemed like you were thinking that there are very few roles women couldn't fill in the military when you typed the following:

"Name one position in the military that is men-only.

Name one position in the military that is 'if you are a man you have a better score in the application'.

I can think of only one -- but the restriction isnt because of physical issues. Serving on a nuclear submarine -- either fast attack or boomer."

It seemed like you disagreed with #'s based on those statements (I mean... you could only think of one single situation in ALL of the military) but I left open the possibility that you agreed.

If you actually read #s statement, as opposed to read what you want to read, he responded to *your* statement of : "that women can basically serve every role in the military ". They cant, due to the word that you used -- 'every.'

I actually agree specifically with #s that they cannot at the present.

Quote:

Quote:And, for the record, I think that everyone should be equally able to be drafted. No racial/sex-based set asides. Nor do I think that roles should be explicitly delineated for or against men/women, nor do I think we need to have x% of all (pick your group) set aside for any such group.

But again, I think that should apply across the board to every position -- including NFL/NBA sports management roles.

Some are for and actively and explicitly support fact-dependent racial discrimination. I am not. I always find it funny that the progs are the one for situational active racial/sexual discrimination. And I like to watch them dance to try and distinguish that position in an objective manner.

If women are not physically capable of filling certain roles does that mean it is sexual discrimination when they aren't offered these roles? Do you think that military positions that require hand-to-hand combat are equally filled by women?

That isnt the subject I brought up initially, is it? You are changing to that subject.

I’m trying to understand your position on the topic better.

The subject that you brought initially was that I should support 100% drafting of females in any upcoming military draft. You then modified that. That’s routine during a conversation.

I think my question is relevant to this discussion.

Just remember that Tanq seemingly enjoys nothing more than going full Don Quixote at you and I as placeholders for all his issues with progressives, leftists, socialists, etc. regardless of our own personal opinions on matters.

(07-20-2021 08:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2021 08:07 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2021 07:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 11:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I dont think I said 'every' role. Leave it to you to make that jump and make an inaccurate comment or pointed supposition about my position in that manner.

I said it was unclear to me if you agree or not (speaking of inaccurate comments about one's position).

I guess it seemed like you were thinking that there are very few roles women couldn't fill in the military when you typed the following:

"Name one position in the military that is men-only.

Name one position in the military that is 'if you are a man you have a better score in the application'.

I can think of only one -- but the restriction isnt because of physical issues. Serving on a nuclear submarine -- either fast attack or boomer."

It seemed like you disagreed with #'s based on those statements (I mean... you could only think of one single situation in ALL of the military) but I left open the possibility that you agreed.

If you actually read #s statement, as opposed to read what you want to read, he responded to *your* statement of : "that women can basically serve every role in the military ". They cant, due to the word that you used -- 'every.'

I actually agree specifically with #s that they cannot at the present.

Quote:

Quote:And, for the record, I think that everyone should be equally able to be drafted. No racial/sex-based set asides. Nor do I think that roles should be explicitly delineated for or against men/women, nor do I think we need to have x% of all (pick your group) set aside for any such group.

But again, I think that should apply across the board to every position -- including NFL/NBA sports management roles.

Some are for and actively and explicitly support fact-dependent racial discrimination. I am not. I always find it funny that the progs are the one for situational active racial/sexual discrimination. And I like to watch them dance to try and distinguish that position in an objective manner.

If women are not physically capable of filling certain roles does that mean it is sexual discrimination when they aren't offered these roles? Do you think that military positions that require hand-to-hand combat are equally filled by women?

That isnt the subject I brought up initially, is it? You are changing to that subject.

I’m trying to understand your position on the topic better.

The subject that you brought initially was that I should support 100% drafting of females in any upcoming military draft. You then modified that. That’s routine during a conversation.

I think my question is relevant to this discussion.

Just remember that Tanq seemingly enjoys nothing more than going full Don Quixote at you and I as placeholders for all his issues with progressives, leftists, socialists, etc. regardless of our own personal opinions on matters.

It's weird that his topic was "not drafting women in the military = sexual discrimination" and then I asked if it is still sexual discrimination if women are not chosen for certain physical roles where they are not as capable as men and instead of answering he called me out for "changing the subject".

(07-19-2021 11:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2021 08:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I like the jig 93 does with 'historically it was thought that women couldnt do it, so it was okay to deny them the ability to serve'.

Tell me this... let's say it's 1941 and we have declared war on the Axis powers. Are you telling me that you believe that a near-100% female fighting force would have been just as succesful as our near-100% male fighting force was? Is that actually the argument that you are making? I'm fascinated if this is, in fact, your position.

If your thesis is the opposite, what has genetically changed in women in the last 60 years? You plant your stick on 'culture has changed our view on the ability of women to fight. Thus we can dismiss the past issues with not having women fight.'

Funny, in all your statements re: systemic blahbitty blah blah blah, how does that statement hang? Let's give it a whirl. 'Culture has changed our view on the ability of blacks to fight'' It has, even in the same timeframe mind you. Given your first excuse, then the second portion that you apply to women should also follow. that is 'thus wa can dismiss the past issues with not having women to fight'. Strangely that isnt the case.

We can even change the subject matter --- 'perform high finance', 'run a company', 'run a sports team', 'be a lawyer'. Does your escape hatch of 'we can excuse the past because they didnt know' actually hold water for any sub-group or activity?

Sorry, your comment on how we should excuse the exclusion of women from the armed sevices 'simply because historically we were wrong' runs right into the same stuff that you rail against on a continuous basis when you stop and think about it.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:A reasonable argument could have been made historically that women are less capable of men of carrying out some of a soldier’s duties. This argument likely holds less and less water as women have proven themselves physically and as technology has evened the playing field.

So you think that in the deep history women couldnt fight as equals in war? Did they magically make a genetic leap in only the last 30 years?

I think that soldiering that required hand-to-hand combat favored men over women just based on average physical strength. Do you disagree?

Of course they haven't made a genetic leap, but the military has changed over the past 30 years. There is less reliance on boots-on-ground and more on drones, satellites, precision strikes, etc. This levels the playing fields to a great extent.

When was the last war decided on primarily on 'hand to hand' combat? I guess that occurred in your mind in the last 30 years? The last true 'hand to hand' was around the turn of the 19th century. The long rifle and artillery erased that aspect for the greater part even at the war of 1861.

So no, the success of women due to 'culture' is due to the blinders of culture. Your thesis again is that those blinders should be ignored because of the 'history' and 'culture'. But your stance on refusing to let blacks serve in combat is rooted in the same misperceptions.

That same root is the same issue why blacks and women were excluded from business, advanced schooling, and pretty much while women were shoved into 'mommy role' as opposed to being a lawyer, much less the Head Partner in a firm, and why blacks were isolated from executive roles.

Yet somehow you are firmly in the camp of 'women were thought not to be able to fight in the culture, so I am going to give culture a pass', which is what your consistent and continuous recitation of 'systemic racism' is, yet you come to the opposite stance for judging that cultural bias. That is quite interesting that you firmly use cultural norm and bias that had no basis as an excuse, and at the same time firmly attack the use of that same cultural norm and bias of history as being 'no excuse'.

Quote:

Quote:93, doesnt also seem to realize that one could also state that comments about 'historical viewpoints' and discriminatory actions on racial groups in the same manner.

Neither blacks, nor women, made astounding genetic leaps that corrected deficiencies in the last several thousand years, I would surmise. Yet 93 is comfortable with the 'historical viewpoint' as women being inferior as justifiable.

Still fascinated with the notion that you believe that women in the 40's were equal to men when it came to the fighting that was required.

They absolutely could have. The Soviets, when strapped for manpower, used women in combat quite extensively. Even more so in non-direct but active support roles. That didnt turn out so bad for them, did it?

Quote:

Quote:Women havent changed, 93. Viewpoints have. Same can be said for racial groups as well.

And no, I dont think that women 'magically' became the equal of men in the armed services role. History is replete with actions of women in combat -- for example I believe the most prolific sniper in World War 2 was a Soviet female.

Again... please let me know if an all-women military would have won WWII or not. If you don't believe that they would have, why not? It really seems that you are arguing that they would have.

Again, the issue of sheer muscle mass of a soldier hasnt been a deciding issue for combat since the development of artillery and long guns. I am saying that women were quite capable in combat in WW2 -- just look to the Soviet use there.

But you are stuck in a rather perverse situation since you give a sheer out excuse and pass for a wrong cultural outlook in women in the military (i.e. we cant judge women in the military at that point because of cultural norms) but fail to realize those are the same overall cultural norms used to justify barring women from the legal profession, professional trades as engineering, math, accountancy, executive positions, etc. The same ones that were used in regards to blacks.

So the other funny thing is that it is OO that said 'you really shouldnt judge the treatment of blacks in the 1940's by today's cultural standards'. And you went off the rails at him for that.

Now, your stance is 'you really shouldnt judge the treatment of women, but only in the military, in the 1940's by today's cultural standards'. And, I really have to laugh at that turn by you.