|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
United States43907 Posts
On April 21 2017 00:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 23:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I'll be surprised if the US isn't globally isolated because of this dipshit in 4 years. South Korea’s government wants to know whether Chinese President Xi Jinping gave alternative facts on the nation’s history to Donald Trump.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, Trump said Xi told him during a recent summit that “Korea actually used to be a part of China.” The comments sparked outrage in Seoul and became an issue in South Korea’s presidential race, prompting the foreign ministry to seek to verify what Xi actually said.
“It’s a clear fact acknowledged by the international community that, for thousands of years in history, Korea has never been part of China,” foreign ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck said at a briefing in Seoul on Thursday.
Trump has sought to get China -- North Korea’s main ally and benefactor -- to do more to persuade dictator Kim Jong Un to stop conducting nuclear and missile tests. Xi’s explanation of the historical relationship made Trump realize that it’s “not so easy” for China to influence North Korea to give up its nuclear program, the newspaper quoted the U.S. president as saying.
Candidates for South Korea’s May 9 presidential election weighed in on the issue, which comes as the nation’s relations with China are already strained over moves to deploy a U.S. missile defense system on its soil.
“This is clearly a distortion of history and an invasion of the Republic of Korea’s sovereignty," conservative Liberty Korea Party candidate Hong Joon-pyo said through a spokesman.
A representative for Democratic Party of Korea candidate Moon Jae-in demanded to find out the full context of Xi’s comment. Ahn Cheol-soo’s People’s Party said that, if true, it would be regrettable for China to distort history in an international diplomacy setting.
Chinese dynasties invaded the Korean Peninsula repeatedly over the centuries and demanded tributes, but South Koreans reject the idea that their ancestors were ever ruled by their neighbor. Source I doubt it. Considering that Trump has gotten China on board with taking more aggressive action against North Korea, he clearly knows what he is doing when it comes to foreign policy and leveraging American might and influence.
So we're ignoring the last two decades of China turning further and further against NK as NK insists upon violating the non proliferation deals and we're especially ignoring the assassination of Kim Jong-Nam, the Chinese sympathetic rival son of Kim Jong-Il?
China's relationship with NK peaked a long time ago. It hasn't changed dramatically in the Trump era, it's changed steadily since NK committed itself to nuclear weapons.
|
On April 20 2017 22:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 22:27 Acrofales wrote:On April 20 2017 22:24 opisska wrote:
I know it's a rather minor topic amidst the current slew of events, but I find O'Reilly's story quite interesting. He is obviously a very intelligent person, eloquent and highly skilled - and even though he was mainly representing "the other camp" from my point of view, he was capable of some reflection and wasn't buying all of Trump's bullshit. Yet, he goes down in the most stereotypical way possible. Just what you would expect from a rich white republican in position of power, isn't it? As far as I understand, he was never really convinced of anything (it's all settlements) so it's a little tricky to say what he "did", but five sexual harassment lawsuits, really? Is it some inane part of the conservative view of the world, to be a sexist pig? Because it seems like there is a kind of a pattern emerging ... It's not just conservatives. It's rich white men. Actually, let me clarify. Rich white men is too unnuanced. It's men in positions of power. They just happen to be rich white men more often than not. The problematic thing when they happen to be republican is that they more often than not have spent their life self righteously preaching "family values" and sexual moral. Just like priests abusing children while the catholic church pretends to incarnate some higher sexual moral and judges people all the time based on their sexuality, it's the hypocrisy that is the most disgusting. I'm glad to see him go.
I think it may be that confirmation bias.
Obviously you need Some power to harass people but the more power you have the more the world is interested in your harassment (There wasn't a 1990s Major news event over a junior level bureaucrat harassing a lower level bureaucrat, but there was over the President harassing someone)
Same with the preaching family values. Hypocrisy is always a bigger story than "Man preaching free love mixes sex and work"
If one were somehow able to actually look at all cases of harassment, I would guess it probably slightly increase with the harassers power and be roughly evenly divided among stated/professed ideologies (assuming you aren't including ideologies where the person believes that sexual harassment is a positive good that should be encouraged.)
|
On April 21 2017 00:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 23:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I'll be surprised if the US isn't globally isolated because of this dipshit in 4 years. South Korea’s government wants to know whether Chinese President Xi Jinping gave alternative facts on the nation’s history to Donald Trump.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, Trump said Xi told him during a recent summit that “Korea actually used to be a part of China.” The comments sparked outrage in Seoul and became an issue in South Korea’s presidential race, prompting the foreign ministry to seek to verify what Xi actually said.
“It’s a clear fact acknowledged by the international community that, for thousands of years in history, Korea has never been part of China,” foreign ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck said at a briefing in Seoul on Thursday.
Trump has sought to get China -- North Korea’s main ally and benefactor -- to do more to persuade dictator Kim Jong Un to stop conducting nuclear and missile tests. Xi’s explanation of the historical relationship made Trump realize that it’s “not so easy” for China to influence North Korea to give up its nuclear program, the newspaper quoted the U.S. president as saying.
Candidates for South Korea’s May 9 presidential election weighed in on the issue, which comes as the nation’s relations with China are already strained over moves to deploy a U.S. missile defense system on its soil.
“This is clearly a distortion of history and an invasion of the Republic of Korea’s sovereignty," conservative Liberty Korea Party candidate Hong Joon-pyo said through a spokesman.
A representative for Democratic Party of Korea candidate Moon Jae-in demanded to find out the full context of Xi’s comment. Ahn Cheol-soo’s People’s Party said that, if true, it would be regrettable for China to distort history in an international diplomacy setting.
Chinese dynasties invaded the Korean Peninsula repeatedly over the centuries and demanded tributes, but South Koreans reject the idea that their ancestors were ever ruled by their neighbor. Source I doubt it. Considering that Trump has gotten China on board with taking more aggressive action against North Korea, he clearly knows what he is doing when it comes to foreign policy and leveraging American might and influence.
Did this Chinese approval come before or after the US lost its carrier group on route to enforce this clearly planned aggressive action?
|
On April 21 2017 00:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 23:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I'll be surprised if the US isn't globally isolated because of this dipshit in 4 years. South Korea’s government wants to know whether Chinese President Xi Jinping gave alternative facts on the nation’s history to Donald Trump.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, Trump said Xi told him during a recent summit that “Korea actually used to be a part of China.” The comments sparked outrage in Seoul and became an issue in South Korea’s presidential race, prompting the foreign ministry to seek to verify what Xi actually said.
“It’s a clear fact acknowledged by the international community that, for thousands of years in history, Korea has never been part of China,” foreign ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck said at a briefing in Seoul on Thursday.
Trump has sought to get China -- North Korea’s main ally and benefactor -- to do more to persuade dictator Kim Jong Un to stop conducting nuclear and missile tests. Xi’s explanation of the historical relationship made Trump realize that it’s “not so easy” for China to influence North Korea to give up its nuclear program, the newspaper quoted the U.S. president as saying.
Candidates for South Korea’s May 9 presidential election weighed in on the issue, which comes as the nation’s relations with China are already strained over moves to deploy a U.S. missile defense system on its soil.
“This is clearly a distortion of history and an invasion of the Republic of Korea’s sovereignty," conservative Liberty Korea Party candidate Hong Joon-pyo said through a spokesman.
A representative for Democratic Party of Korea candidate Moon Jae-in demanded to find out the full context of Xi’s comment. Ahn Cheol-soo’s People’s Party said that, if true, it would be regrettable for China to distort history in an international diplomacy setting.
Chinese dynasties invaded the Korean Peninsula repeatedly over the centuries and demanded tributes, but South Koreans reject the idea that their ancestors were ever ruled by their neighbor. Source I doubt it. Considering that Trump has gotten China on board with taking more aggressive action against North Korea, he clearly knows what he is doing when it comes to foreign policy and leveraging American might and influence.
Clearly this is all due to our Great Orange Saviour.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/19/donald-trump/trump-china-taking-unprecedented-steps-help-north-/
|
On April 21 2017 00:33 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 22:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 22:27 Acrofales wrote:On April 20 2017 22:24 opisska wrote:
I know it's a rather minor topic amidst the current slew of events, but I find O'Reilly's story quite interesting. He is obviously a very intelligent person, eloquent and highly skilled - and even though he was mainly representing "the other camp" from my point of view, he was capable of some reflection and wasn't buying all of Trump's bullshit. Yet, he goes down in the most stereotypical way possible. Just what you would expect from a rich white republican in position of power, isn't it? As far as I understand, he was never really convinced of anything (it's all settlements) so it's a little tricky to say what he "did", but five sexual harassment lawsuits, really? Is it some inane part of the conservative view of the world, to be a sexist pig? Because it seems like there is a kind of a pattern emerging ... It's not just conservatives. It's rich white men. Actually, let me clarify. Rich white men is too unnuanced. It's men in positions of power. They just happen to be rich white men more often than not. The problematic thing when they happen to be republican is that they more often than not have spent their life self righteously preaching "family values" and sexual moral. Just like priests abusing children while the catholic church pretends to incarnate some higher sexual moral and judges people all the time based on their sexuality, it's the hypocrisy that is the most disgusting. I'm glad to see him go. I think it may be that confirmation bias. Obviously you need Some power to harass people but the more power you have the more the world is interested in your harassment (There wasn't a 1990s Major news event over a junior level bureaucrat harassing a lower level bureaucrat, but there was over the President harassing someone) Same with the preaching family values. Hypocrisy is always a bigger story than "Man preaching free love mixes sex and work" If one were somehow able to actually look at all cases of harassment, I would guess it probably slightly increase with the harassers power and be roughly evenly divided among stated/professed ideologies (assuming you aren't including ideologies where the person believes that sexual harassment is a positive good that should be encouraged.)
Wasn't O'Reilly also in some domestic abuse case not long ago? (His daughter testified he choked her mother, dragged her down the stairs or something). I'm honestly surprised Fox kept him around so long, I guess his cash cow status outweighed the attorney fees, not anymore though. Was forced to watch "the factor" for so many years while visiting my mother, so glad he's gone. Hannity next hopefully.
|
United States43907 Posts
On April 21 2017 00:49 Powerpill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 00:33 Krikkitone wrote:On April 20 2017 22:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 22:27 Acrofales wrote:On April 20 2017 22:24 opisska wrote:
I know it's a rather minor topic amidst the current slew of events, but I find O'Reilly's story quite interesting. He is obviously a very intelligent person, eloquent and highly skilled - and even though he was mainly representing "the other camp" from my point of view, he was capable of some reflection and wasn't buying all of Trump's bullshit. Yet, he goes down in the most stereotypical way possible. Just what you would expect from a rich white republican in position of power, isn't it? As far as I understand, he was never really convinced of anything (it's all settlements) so it's a little tricky to say what he "did", but five sexual harassment lawsuits, really? Is it some inane part of the conservative view of the world, to be a sexist pig? Because it seems like there is a kind of a pattern emerging ... It's not just conservatives. It's rich white men. Actually, let me clarify. Rich white men is too unnuanced. It's men in positions of power. They just happen to be rich white men more often than not. The problematic thing when they happen to be republican is that they more often than not have spent their life self righteously preaching "family values" and sexual moral. Just like priests abusing children while the catholic church pretends to incarnate some higher sexual moral and judges people all the time based on their sexuality, it's the hypocrisy that is the most disgusting. I'm glad to see him go. I think it may be that confirmation bias. Obviously you need Some power to harass people but the more power you have the more the world is interested in your harassment (There wasn't a 1990s Major news event over a junior level bureaucrat harassing a lower level bureaucrat, but there was over the President harassing someone) Same with the preaching family values. Hypocrisy is always a bigger story than "Man preaching free love mixes sex and work" If one were somehow able to actually look at all cases of harassment, I would guess it probably slightly increase with the harassers power and be roughly evenly divided among stated/professed ideologies (assuming you aren't including ideologies where the person believes that sexual harassment is a positive good that should be encouraged.) Wasn't O'Reilly also in some domestic abuse case not long ago? (His daughter testified he choked her mother, dragged her down the stairs or something). I'm honestly surprised Fox kept him around so long, I guess his cash cow status outweighed the attorney fees, not anymore though. Was forced to watch "the factor" for so many years while visiting my mother, so glad he's gone. Hannity next hopefully.
You have to think of this in terms of the people who watch O'Reilly. These are not people particularly upset by a man beating his wife. For O'Reilly to be worth keeping around he only needs to be popular with the people who pay his salary, how the broader public feel about him is irrelevant.
|
Massive trolling in the White House.
+ Show Spoiler +
This would be exciting if all the misspellings were actually the truth of the situation. I'd approve of Russian contacts if Trump campaign personnel went to hear them perform
|
On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices.
That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case.
I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question.
|
On April 21 2017 00:33 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 22:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 22:27 Acrofales wrote:On April 20 2017 22:24 opisska wrote:
I know it's a rather minor topic amidst the current slew of events, but I find O'Reilly's story quite interesting. He is obviously a very intelligent person, eloquent and highly skilled - and even though he was mainly representing "the other camp" from my point of view, he was capable of some reflection and wasn't buying all of Trump's bullshit. Yet, he goes down in the most stereotypical way possible. Just what you would expect from a rich white republican in position of power, isn't it? As far as I understand, he was never really convinced of anything (it's all settlements) so it's a little tricky to say what he "did", but five sexual harassment lawsuits, really? Is it some inane part of the conservative view of the world, to be a sexist pig? Because it seems like there is a kind of a pattern emerging ... It's not just conservatives. It's rich white men. Actually, let me clarify. Rich white men is too unnuanced. It's men in positions of power. They just happen to be rich white men more often than not. The problematic thing when they happen to be republican is that they more often than not have spent their life self righteously preaching "family values" and sexual moral. Just like priests abusing children while the catholic church pretends to incarnate some higher sexual moral and judges people all the time based on their sexuality, it's the hypocrisy that is the most disgusting. I'm glad to see him go. I think it may be that confirmation bias. Obviously you need Some power to harass people but the more power you have the more the world is interested in your harassment (There wasn't a 1990s Major news event over a junior level bureaucrat harassing a lower level bureaucrat, but there was over the President harassing someone) Same with the preaching family values. Hypocrisy is always a bigger story than "Man preaching free love mixes sex and work" If one were somehow able to actually look at all cases of harassment, I would guess it probably slightly increase with the harassers power and be roughly evenly divided among stated/professed ideologies (assuming you aren't including ideologies where the person believes that sexual harassment is a positive good that should be encouraged.)
It's simply annoying when you realize that the self righteous guy who has taken the moral high ground and been a judgmental dick on national TV for 20 years happens to be a sexist pig.
It just disqualifies him to ever address an audience again (then again, he's never been qualified and his racist bullshit should have had him fired years ago).
|
On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question.
Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it.
Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes...
|
On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes...
There ain't even individual cabins in those subs. You would basically need to have sex one meter away from other people. Not the best situation.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-its-like-to-live-on-nuclear-757728
Look at the quarter picture and imagine people having sex in there. That's hell for everyone.
|
Adding women to a sub that isn't used to having women as crew will cause drama and command issues. But I don't think it will be any worse than when we desegregated the military. I do know that the commanders of the subs don't want to deal with the issues created by female crew members and will protest it no matter what.
We have sent women to space with men and they managed not to end up in a shitty love triangle from the Hunger Games. They can serve on subs.
|
On April 21 2017 01:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... There ain't even individual cabins in those subs. You would basically need to have sex one meter away from other people. Not the best situation.
It happens. I've experienced people having sex in the bottom dorm bed while I was trying to sleep in the top bunk...
|
United States43907 Posts
On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes...
This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine.
Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation.
|
Are we sure at this point that an army of mixed genders with an open culture of free sex without commitment wouldn't be more efficient? Surely any relationships are a recipe for disaster, no doubt about that, but what about some good old fucking around? Probably the biggest issue would be to make sure everyone is on the same page here ...
|
On April 21 2017 02:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 01:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... There ain't even individual cabins in those subs. You would basically need to have sex one meter away from other people. Not the best situation. It happens. I've experienced people having sex in the bottom dorm bed while I was trying to sleep in the top bunk...
Yeah, I've also been on both ends of the situation. It's not precisely the most healthy way to cohabitate tension free. Surrounded, as Kwark put it, by world ending devices, you might want to avoid.
|
On April 21 2017 02:02 opisska wrote:
Are we sure at this point that an army of mixed genders with an open culture of free sex without commitment wouldn't be more efficient? Surely any relationships are a recipe for disaster, no doubt about that, but what about some good old fucking around? Probably the biggest issue would be to make sure everyone is on the same page here ...
I am all for free sex, but it fucks me up even more than relationships and I'm probably not the only one.
|
On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation.
But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment.
|
Isn't this just the good ol' Christian abstinence argument all over again?
I know there's the romanticized version of the military where soldiers can be moulded into perfect models of discipline, just like proper Christian children who will never think of having sex ever, but it seems more effective to shape policies around realistic expectations.
|
United States43907 Posts
On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine. Or anywhere else... Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships. A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants. The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world. I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else. You ideally want a nuclear submarine to be as low drama as possible. 110% professional, people get up, do their jobs exactly as they're meant to, go back to sleep. No gossip, no interpersonal conflict, basically no Jersey Shore shit. I'm fine with people having sex, just not when they're meant to be working on world ending devices. That makes an awful lot of sense, I rest my case. I think the fact that you don't have anywhere to do that privately on a sub also kind of solves the question. Same solution as in a student flat: hang a sock on the doorknob. Sex may very well be an important behaviour for adult humans to engage in ( http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health#1 ). Especially reducing stress and improving sleep seem like they could be important benefits on a submarine. And in addition, sex is going to happen in any case, and forbidding consensual sex is a battle the army is always going to lose. And if drama comes with it, you need ways to manage it, not forbid it. Note that drama will happen in any case. If they're not fighting about who gets to sleep with who, they're fighting over who fished the chocolate chips out of the cornflakes... This is absurd. Just because people living in extremely close proximity to each other with no way to take some time out will always have drama doesn't mean you need to introduce sex into the equation. That's like saying that you realized you're dependent upon coffee to have a good morning so you thought fuck it, addiction is unavoidable, and built heroin into your lunch routine. Sure, you don't want nuclear submarine crews arguing over anything. Any conflict that disrupts the running of the submarine is bad. And sure, some conflict is unavoidable. But at no point does it become a good idea to introduce sexual competition, jealousy, rivalries, hurt feelings and the rest of that bullshit into the equation. But women do all sorts of stressful things in close quarters with men. They work on bases in the arctic. They work in space. They serve on other ships on the ocean. Subs are not magical places that are different for some reason. It is just another environment.
You understand that I'm not saying no women on nuclear submarines, I'm saying no fucking on nuclear submarines, right? That's there with a bunch of other things that I would be fine with people doing in the arctic, such as getting drunk in the evenings, but which suddenly don't seem quite such a good idea when combined with the words nuclear submarine.
I get that I'm expecting a very exacting level of 24/7 professionalism from these people that is higher than the level of professionalism expected elsewhere and I'm perfectly fine if that involves increasing their compensation to reflect it but, call me old fashioned if you will, professionalism is one of the things I look for in a nuclear deterrent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
