Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

10 (76.9%)

No

3 (23.1%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Knight of Fools]

Also, exoskeletons

Power Armor solves everything!

At that point you might as well just fill the exoskeleton with bullets and send it to fight by remote control.

Then we'd have to deal with the "men are better at FPS's than women" debate.

I suppose that solves that, but I don't imagine hordes of women would be excited about having medical instruments placed inside of them to prevent pregnancy and menstruation just so they can perform a particular job. I know I wouldn't be thrilled at the prospect.

Uh. . . you should probably actually read about what that is.  It's about as invasive as a tampon, you insert it yourself, and it doesn't prevent pregnancy.  Also, it's not a "medical instrument," and it's actually very popular.  You only have to have one, and the only waste you deal with is entirely liquid.

Oh, my bad. I kind of skimmed over your post without actually reading the article and completely misunderstood what exactly it was. I assumed it was one of those medically inserted pieces of plastic that stopped a bunch of processes, like the ones you used to see on TV (That were apparently horrible and dangerous).

[Loud Whispers]

I expect I'm in the minority for thinking that, even within this thread.

How could you support equal base standards while supporting equal opportunity while holding gendered prejudice? I imagine the people ITT wouldn't be all that judgmental, least of all on this forum.

I didn't say anything about oppression being ingrained in our genetics.

Genetics can be the result of oppression.

Yes, but you did say it can be the result of oppression.

Oppression can affect genetics, without the involvement of eugenics.  But my point in was in response to "Are women also shorter on average because beauty standards don't let them grow tall?"  It doesn't take much thought to realize that the answer is "sort-of, yes".  Associating the things I said with eugenics is an extreme conclusion to jump to.

What you described was a societal movement seeking to improve the occurrence of its desirable hereditary traits. This would be eugenics.
Saying that genetics can be involved in oppression is an extreme point in itself.

Telling me, and everyone else that I don't know the meanings of words like 'oppression, acceptance, understanding, doubt,' and being 'receptive,' is insulting, misleading, and unnecessary.

You've been using them in sentences that you apparently disagree with.
This suggests you do not understand what they mean.
If it's insulting, there is naught I can do. Read it in Morgan Freeman's voice, if it is still insulting; it probably is.

I'm not addressing your response to the other posters, and you know it.

No I didn't. You spent entire posts quoting me and letting me play spot the difference. I had to keep guessing to see what it was you were exactly accusing me of.

Irrelevant

The detail of your brief posts haven't been all that helpful at all.

Do not pretend to be confused.

You are confused|stop being confused.

By removing the posts that I'm responding to, including one of yours, you are changing the context in which they are read.

Unless you click on the quote links.

The quote pyramids are not a problem if you spoiler them, and you know it.

It is what I have done forever now, I reserve spoilers for quotes and images for the sake of editing. When multiple spoilers overlap with quotes, it takes much longer to sort through them and fix them.
Just look at your attempts to spoiler a long, hard to read conversation - some of the things you've quoted as being said by you were said by me and vice versa.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Ah, no, I meant the repetitive stress injuries that being a soldier tends to cause--bad backs, knees, ankles, etc.  Not stuff accrued from combat.

Are you implying that the armed forces care about what happens to the people who serve in them after they retire? For shame, Vector.

[Gotdamnmiracle]

It's not really becoming lighter, though. As individual components become lighter, they just cram more in. It's a matter of logistics. The longer a squad can go without resupply, the less trucks and helicopters they're tying down.

Ah yeah, I hadn't thought of that.  I'd assumed that they'd put a greater emphasis on individual troops being able to move more quickly and suffering fewer injuries, which seems incorrect.

Well, then you just hit them with sticks until they can run fast under a heavy load.

Injury reduction is mostly because of armor. Ceramic armor these days is really, really good. If you look at photos of IED wounds (which you probably don't want to do, because they're not pleasant) you can usually see a line where the skin goes from burnt and scarred to perfectly fine. That line is where the armor starts.

Yeah, SAPI plates are great. That's why you see so many amputees. We don't have armor to cover their arms or legs. The trunk is pretty well protected.

[Knight of Fools]

The quote pyramids are not a problem if you spoiler them, and you know it.

It is what I have done forever now, I reserve spoilers for quotes and images for the sake of editing. When multiple spoilers overlap with quotes, it takes much longer to sort through them and fix them.
Just look at your attempts to spoiler a long, hard to read conversation - some of the things you've quoted as being said by you were said by me and vice versa.

If I remember correctly, the forums also react badly to large quote pyramids (Causing large scale crashing and genocide), which leads to an unhappy Toady.

Unless that issue has been fixed, of course.

[weenog]

How could you support equal base standards while supporting equal opportunity while holding gendered prejudice? I imagine the people ITT wouldn't be all that judgmental, least of all on this forum.

It's pretty easy.  All you have to do is acknowledge that there are differences, while understanding that they're not so significant as to be insurmountable.

It helps if you're fortunate enough to get in some quality wrestling time with someone 1/3 your mass who can give you a hard time grappling with them regardless. 

[penguinofhonor]

If I remember correctly, the forums also react badly to large quote pyramids (Causing large scale crashing and genocide), which leads to an unhappy Toady.

Unless that issue has been fixed, of course.

I'm glad we found that out early in the forums. Right as the new software switched over and quote pyramids became possible, one of the first threads was a "let's make a page-breaking quote pyramid" thread.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If we hadn't gotten the new software we already would have stack overflowed with the Happy and Sad threads.

[Vector]

Oh, my bad. I kind of skimmed over your post without actually reading the article and completely misunderstood what exactly it was. I assumed it was one of those medically inserted pieces of plastic that stopped a bunch of processes, like the ones you used to see on TV (That were apparently horrible and dangerous).

Naw, that's cool =)

Are you implying that the armed forces care about what happens to the people who serve in them after they retire? For shame, Vector.

>______>

[Scelly9]

PTW

[Flying Dice]

I... uh, actually, I think Max said everything that really needs to be said on the first page (at least in terms of the core topic). The same tests for all trainees, everyone who is passed is treated in the same way. Gender is irrelevant, what matters is ability.

[Neonivek]

I... uh, actually, I think Max said everything that really needs to be said on the first page (at least in terms of the core topic). The same tests for all trainees, everyone who is passed is treated in the same way. Gender is irrelevant, what matters is ability.

And I said that the test is based upon being male. Gender is relevant.

Except what I said may not be true since from what I can gather there could be separate tests... and the general aptitude and necessity and source of the test are still unknowns.

[Knight of Fools]

I was thinking about the discussion about equalizing the draft between both genders, starting with this:

To anticipate an argument, I believe that if we have a draft, it should be universal.  However, I also don't think conscription is a good thing.

I don't find the idea of conscription, war, or military service appealing at all. At no point in my life do I want to be involved with any of those things, much less be forced to, and neither do I want anyone else to be forced to.

Taking it to another level and at the risk of being misunderstood, if I had a chance to give half of the human race a choice about being involved in that, then I'd take it, even if I weren't part of that demographic. Just because that half happens to be female doesn't mean I'm a misogynist. I don't have the chance to say "No, I don't want to be a part of the draft", and I don't see why I should go force someone else to do it, too, especially when they're not required to at the moment. Should women have the opportunity to sign up for it anyways? Sure, I don't have a problem with that. Just don't force them to.

Don't take this the wrong way: I'm hardly Captain Chivalry. It's not about "protecting women" based on some notion that I have to protect the "weaker sex". It's about not forcing people to do things I personally don't want to do, regardless of race/gender/etc. If we have to do a balancing act between genders, let's not take away the rights of women in the spirit of equality. That seems counter intuitive.


Another possible benefit? Well, some day we may be able to get rid of compulsory draft altogether. If women are allowed to sign up for the draft, but men are forced to, we can reverse the whole issue and say, "Hey, that's not fair! Women have a choice!" Bam, suddenly a new social issue forces the government to toss the draft as it was out the window. The only reason to sign up for the draft would be for some misplaced sense of duty, or maybe a small check/tax write off from the government at the end of the year.

It's a round about way of doing things, but that's how things happen in the government anyways.

[Vector]

Eh. . . thing is, though, the standard explanation for why women shouldn't be drafted is because we need their uteruses to stay home.  That's another kind of conscription, that's already present, and we don't talk about it because it's simply a social expectation that what happens is men go off, women wait for them to come back and then they've got an obligation to give birth a whole lot.

[Max White]

And then you get a baby boom and then sixty years later economic problems because of your aging population and all skill suddenly leaving the work force at the same time.
Look, that is the way my daddy did it, and my grandpappy did it, and I'll be damned if we are going to change it now!