In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On December 25 2015 07:13 Cowboy64 wrote: The differences between the sexes will have an impact on every interaction. Further if we're gonna go down the rabbit hole of women in the military we have to set a basis for what our military is supposed to be doing, how it is supposed to look, etc. Not sure I'm ready for that discussion.
Donald Trump's heir and primary advisor is his daughter. Who is a woman. So I highly doubt he expects her to "go back to the kitchen". No one has ever suggested that, so I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion in any way. Second, I don't get why people think the military should be about "opportunity" instead of "service".
Finally, I think it is incredibly wrong and mean-spirited to accuse either Trump of wanting to punish rape victims, or of wanting to "do nothing to rapists". There is no evidence of that and I think that kind of accusation is just horrible.
Also, no one ever suggested that rape should be legalized, so basically your response was just a jumble of red-herrings, ad hominem, baseless accusation, and strawmanning.
first one: You don't have a set of (physical) tests in place already? oO
second one: the kitchen was Kwark being Kwark, the second part is self explanatory. If a woman passes the same tests as any other man does, including physical exercise for the given position she wants to apply for... who are we to deny her? So it's opportunity in that sense and there's nothing wrong with that. If you're qualified to do the job you're qualified to do the job.
third: It kinda shows when, again assuming what was said is correct, the majority of assaults are male on male and he doesn't want to address that. Probably because talking about men assaulting men is not what a lot of people want to hear about on the conservative side of things
I'd like to clarify that only the majority of unreported sexual assaults are male on male. The vast majority of reported sexual assaults involve female victims. DoD: Sexual Abuse Prevention and Response (SAPR) releases reports which you should be able to find without any trouble if you want more specifics.
On December 25 2015 07:13 Cowboy64 wrote: The differences between the sexes will have an impact on every interaction. Further if we're gonna go down the rabbit hole of women in the military we have to set a basis for what our military is supposed to be doing, how it is supposed to look, etc. Not sure I'm ready for that discussion.
Donald Trump's heir and primary advisor is his daughter. Who is a woman. So I highly doubt he expects her to "go back to the kitchen". No one has ever suggested that, so I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion in any way. Second, I don't get why people think the military should be about "opportunity" instead of "service".
Finally, I think it is incredibly wrong and mean-spirited to accuse either Trump of wanting to punish rape victims, or of wanting to "do nothing to rapists". There is no evidence of that and I think that kind of accusation is just horrible.
Also, no one ever suggested that rape should be legalized, so basically your response was just a jumble of red-herrings, ad hominem, baseless accusation, and strawmanning.
His point isn't that hard to understand really. By suggesting that segregation is a solution to rape you are absolving men of their responsibility and you are denying women opportunities. This is the classical blame the victim attitude that has always existed when it comes to rape.
I refuse to believe that anyone actually believes this kind of thing. It is so intellectually dishonest and absurd, it's probably one of the most ridiculous arguments in politics today.
Regardless of whether you like it or not, the fact is that rape has always existed and will always exist. We can wish it weren't so all we want, but it will exist. You're not doing anyone any favors by telling them they should give no thought to protecting themselves.
Once again, why do you think the military is an "opportunity" and not "service"?
And finally, why do you people think telling people not to rape is going to stop rape? I have never understood what the solution is for these "victim blaming!" people. Is your solution literally to wish people didn't rape and then stop there? How in the world is that a legitimate solution?
On December 25 2015 07:48 Toadesstern wrote:
third: It kinda shows when, again assuming what was said is correct, the majority of assaults are male on male and he doesn't want to address that. Probably because talking about men assaulting men is not what a lot of people want to hear about on the conservative side of things
That quite literally has nothing to do with Trump's tweet or with anything I've said, that's why I ignored it. If we're talking about illegal immigration in America and someone jumps in with statistics about Botswana's legal immigrants I'll ignore them too because it's completely irrelevant, not because I'm a "conservative".
On December 25 2015 07:13 Cowboy64 wrote: The differences between the sexes will have an impact on every interaction. Further if we're gonna go down the rabbit hole of women in the military we have to set a basis for what our military is supposed to be doing, how it is supposed to look, etc. Not sure I'm ready for that discussion.
Donald Trump's heir and primary advisor is his daughter. Who is a woman. So I highly doubt he expects her to "go back to the kitchen". No one has ever suggested that, so I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion in any way. Second, I don't get why people think the military should be about "opportunity" instead of "service".
Finally, I think it is incredibly wrong and mean-spirited to accuse either Trump of wanting to punish rape victims, or of wanting to "do nothing to rapists". There is no evidence of that and I think that kind of accusation is just horrible.
Also, no one ever suggested that rape should be legalized, so basically your response was just a jumble of red-herrings, ad hominem, baseless accusation, and strawmanning.
first one: You don't have a set of (physical) tests in place already? oO
second one: the kitchen was Kwark being Kwark, the second part is self explanatory. If a woman passes the same tests as any other man does, including physical exercise for the given position she wants to apply for... who are we to deny her? So it's opportunity in that sense and there's nothing wrong with that. If you're qualified to do the job you're qualified to do the job.
third: It kinda shows when, again assuming what was said is correct, the majority of assaults are male on male and he doesn't want to address that. Probably because talking about men assaulting men is not what a lot of people want to hear about on the conservative side of things
They don't. The military has different physical standards for men and women, because very few women would make it if they were held to the same standard as men are.
On December 25 2015 07:13 Cowboy64 wrote: The differences between the sexes will have an impact on every interaction. Further if we're gonna go down the rabbit hole of women in the military we have to set a basis for what our military is supposed to be doing, how it is supposed to look, etc. Not sure I'm ready for that discussion.
Donald Trump's heir and primary advisor is his daughter. Who is a woman. So I highly doubt he expects her to "go back to the kitchen". No one has ever suggested that, so I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion in any way. Second, I don't get why people think the military should be about "opportunity" instead of "service".
Finally, I think it is incredibly wrong and mean-spirited to accuse either Trump of wanting to punish rape victims, or of wanting to "do nothing to rapists". There is no evidence of that and I think that kind of accusation is just horrible.
Also, no one ever suggested that rape should be legalized, so basically your response was just a jumble of red-herrings, ad hominem, baseless accusation, and strawmanning.
first one: You don't have a set of (physical) tests in place already? oO
second one: the kitchen was Kwark being Kwark, the second part is self explanatory. If a woman passes the same tests as any other man does, including physical exercise for the given position she wants to apply for... who are we to deny her? So it's opportunity in that sense and there's nothing wrong with that. If you're qualified to do the job you're qualified to do the job.
third: It kinda shows when, again assuming what was said is correct, the majority of assaults are male on male and he doesn't want to address that. Probably because talking about men assaulting men is not what a lot of people want to hear about on the conservative side of things
They don't. The military has different physical standards for men and women, because very few women would make it if they were held to the same standard as men are.
There is a mixture of opinion on that. To me the obvious answer is to do the same thing they've been doing with soldiers mental capacity for decades. Set different standards for different MOS's and make them the same regardless of gender.
Doesn't matter how many pull-ups a finance clerk can do but I sure as hell would want a Marine who could pull themselves up if they were clearing buildings or something, regardless of gender.
Cowboy's rape argument would be funny if it weren't for millions of people believing it. I'm not sure which would be worse, whether they see how bs their reasoning is and just don't care or if they are actually oblivious to what's being said.
Issue has more to do with increased pressure for women to be more involved in, well, anything that pays well. They won't be able to hold them to the same standards as men because ironically that'd be sexist, as it would mean less women are able to take part in the military.
On December 25 2015 11:59 killa_robot wrote: Issue has more to do with increased pressure for women to be more involved in, well, anything that pays well. They won't be able to hold them to the same standards as men because ironically that'd be sexist, as it would mean less women are able to take part in the military.
If the standards are relevant I don't think it's inherently being sexist. The military just likes using the "there's less women to choose from" excuse to cover up that it's one of the last remaining "boys clubs".
The sexism that turns women away from the military comes in many forms and long before they apply to join but relevant equal standards isn't the sexism I think most women are worried about. Not sure if it's been polled but I'd bet most military women don't want the standards lowered either.
Lowering standards is just a lazy implementation of a needed change. In order to get better representation they would have to do things like advertise toward women, promote more qualified women, and actually prosecute their rapists.
People would rather divert attention from the actual structural and endemic sexism and point to outdated physical standards that are somewhat irrelevant to the legitimate grievances of sexism in the military.
A massive natural gas leak in Aliso Canyon, California, about 25 miles north of Los Angeles, has been spewing about 62 million standard cubic feet of methane per day into the air since a well casing mysteriously suffered damage on Oct. 23 of this year.
The leak is unlikely to be squelched for another three to four months, according to SoCalGas, as crews have to drill about 8,500 underground to intersect with the base of the leaking pipe.
Already, more than 1,000 people in Porter Ranch and Northridge, California have temporarily relocated due to health complaints related to the fumes from the leak. In addition, the Los Angeles Unified School District's Board of Education decided on Dec. 17 to temporarily relocate two schools for the rest of the 2015-16 school year.
The Aliso Canyon leak demonstrates a potential blind spot in the nascent regulatory system for overseeing the country's growing natural gas infrastructure. Companies are being pushed to contain leaks in their natural gas pipelines and at facilities that burn natural gas, but underground storage areas, of which there are more than 300 nationwide, aren't subjected to specific standards that might have prevented this leak.
California has been monitoring the air quality in the Porter Ranch community, which is closest to the leak and where many people have complained about health issues. They have found that, so far, the level of pollutants in the air, including benzene, which can be extremely hazardous when present in particularly high levels, has remained below the threshold where they would be considered dangerous.
However, natural gas odorants can cause adverse physical symptoms, including nausea and headaches, despite the lack of long-term health risk. A spokesman for SoCalGas told Mashable that the company "recognizes the impact this incident is having on the environment," but said it's unsure exactly how much gas has escaped so far.
On December 25 2015 14:39 IgnE wrote: Everyone knows women make better soldiers anyway; they have fewer problems with authority.
And also the one that will really hurt, women have higher shooting accuracy!
I'm very skeptical of a sex-based difference existing on something like this that isn't effected by confounding or bias or anything of this variety.
I think he was being sarcastic. Research I found showed that men, even untrained, were betters shots than women. Though the weapons they used were all fairly large, so I feel like it was more of an upper body strength issue (unable to handle recoil as well), than actual ability.
Quietly, just a few days before Christmas, the federal government made a huge change to the way it cooperates with local police departments: it's no longer giving local police departments a share of money or property seized from people who haven't committed crimes.
For decades, the federal government has basically given local police an easy loophole to let them keep a share of any assets they seize — rather than those assets going to other parts of state government, like education. Now, it's closing that loophole.
The Department of Justice says that it's changing its asset forfeiture policies for budgetary reasons — which means that the change might be only temporary, and the government might even end up reimbursing local police departments for any assets they don't get a share of now. But for the moment, it's a big deal.
Better late than never I guess, no plans for restitution for the lives they helped destroy I imagine though.
The nation's top drug official went on CBS' "60 Minutes" Sunday night and proclaimed the old War on Drugs a failure. Michael Botticelli, who serves as the director of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, also said he wants to reform and refocus U.S. drug policy.
When asked by "60 Minutes" host Scott Pelley if the costly drug war that has been in place for more than 40 years had been wrong, Botticelli had blunt words for what he called the "failed policies and failed practices" of the past, noting that those policies were largely responsible for the nation's mass incarceration epidemic.
On December 25 2015 15:44 Deathstar wrote: Man we need a country to really challenge us.
Beacuse the cold war was a really great time for everyone.
People like to complain about the US and how it wields its power. People like to forget how much peace has been brought to our planet by having such a dominant superpower.
On December 27 2015 02:46 Velr wrote: I could say the same about the udssr and be equally wrong and stupid. Or about the British empire.... ...
No, you'd be much more wrong and stupid saying the same of the USSR (if it had been as hegemonic globally as it was regionally in Eastern Europe and areas of Asia).
EPT
