|
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 States43543 Posts
On April 21 2017 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:30 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:22 opisska wrote:On April 21 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Do you allow them to eat and shit? Why not sex then? Isn't it just your personal preconception, that a given bodily function is "less professional"? This shouldn't really be about "what looks more professional" but what yields higher efficiency. That well-being of workers increases their efficiency is widely accepted across many fields, why should it be different in the army? I admit that I am not sure that having unhinged sex actually increases happiness of the typical marine, but I also don't know for sure that it doesn't. Are there any actual studies? Has it been even tried in an at least remotely relevant setting? In general, I would just expect more fact-based argument from you in particular than this essential "it doesn't feel right". I simply disagree with your starting premise. If I accepted your premise that introducing sex into a small group of people confined together actually made the group more functional then I'd be all for it. But I don't. We're both making the same argument, that functionality and rationality is important when it comes to nuclear submarines. Where we differ is simply whether sexual competition within an isolated group makes things better. You have a valid point but you need to balance it with the sexual repression you are advocating. It's not particularly healthy either.
Prohibition didn't work especially well either but I don't see anyone suggesting we introduce LSD and gambling to the nuclear deterrent.
|
On April 21 2017 02:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:15 Eridanus wrote:
Maybe all men need to be banned from submarines and space missions?
Can't believe this sexism is going on here, 2017. But then maybe I am naive at the masochism present in gaming culture. It is this weird debate where the argument revolves around people having romantic feelings being this unsolvable problem for the military. The same military that we expect to deal with complex, nuanced conflicts all over the world, sometimes without limited input from the US directly. But a man and a woman fucking on a sub will will somehow be more challenging to deal with than alcoholism or something. Can't we be opposed to both alcoholism and interpersonal drama on our nuclear submarines? It's not like anyone here is saying that we're fine with alcoholism on a nuclear submarine but against fucking. I don't think this is really all that complex. There are a few jobs in which you're expected to change your entire life and be a 24/7 professional while you occupy them. This is one of them. It doesn't mean nobody in the military can fuck. It doesn't mean women or gays can't be in the military. It just means that if you're currently stationed on a nuclear submarine then be a sailor first. That's all. It's the same with mind altering substances, gambling and a bunch of other things we ask them not to do.
At least in Her Majesty's Royal Navy, there was no rule against drinking until this incident: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11037096/Royal-Navy-alcohol-consumption-curbed-after-fatal-submarine-shooting.html
And insofar as I know, there's still no rule against drinking (just guidelines). Now you can obviously oppose this and feel such a rule should be imposed. I expect gambling is similar, and low stakes poker games will happen as a way to pass the time, which you could also oppose, I guess. But I also suspect such rules will be instantly broken (if the 1920s can serve as a warning).
I also suspect that the environment will not actually improve. Obviously things like getting shitfaced should not be tolerated (and probably already aren't), nor getting into serious gambling debts (harder to detect and act against). But some light drinking and cardplay seems like a great way for people in a high stress environment to let off some steam.
|
On April 21 2017 02:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:26 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:15 Eridanus wrote:
Maybe all men need to be banned from submarines and space missions?
Can't believe this sexism is going on here, 2017. But then maybe I am naive at the masochism present in gaming culture. It is this weird debate where the argument revolves around people having romantic feelings being this unsolvable problem for the military. The same military that we expect to deal with complex, nuanced conflicts all over the world, sometimes without limited input from the US directly. But a man and a woman fucking on a sub will will somehow be more challenging to deal with than alcoholism or something. Can't we be opposed to both alcoholism and interpersonal drama on our nuclear submarines? It's not like anyone here is saying that we're fine with alcoholism on a nuclear submarine but against fucking. I don't think this is really all that complex. There are a few jobs in which you're expected to change your entire life and be a 24/7 professional while you occupy them. This is one of them. It doesn't mean nobody in the military can fuck. It doesn't mean women or gays can't be in the military. It just means that if you're currently stationed on a nuclear submarine then be a sailor first. That's all. It's the same with mind altering substances, gambling and a bunch of other things we ask them not to do. So what you are saying is no gays on subs either, because they might fuck? Only people who don't want to fuck each other on subs, because humans can't not fuck? It is literally out of our control. We will give these people guns and tell them "don't shoot unless we tell you to!" and its cool. But we can't have them hanging out in a underwater tube because they might bang. Like we went to the moon, rocket landed as SUV on Mars, mapped the genome and split the atom, but this shit is impossible. Dude. Fucking read my posts. I literally said that I didn't mean no women and I didn't mean no gays. You promptly respond "so you're saying no gays as well as no women?!?!?". Stop for a moment and read what I am actually saying. It's literally "don't fuck". That's it. If you're gay, don't fuck. If you're straight, don't fuck. If you're bi, don't fuck. That's all I'm saying. I've been saying it over and over and you keep insisting I mean no women and for some reason also now no gays.
My mistake, I apologize.
|
On April 21 2017 02:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 21 2017 02:30 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:22 opisska wrote:On April 21 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Do you allow them to eat and shit? Why not sex then? Isn't it just your personal preconception, that a given bodily function is "less professional"? This shouldn't really be about "what looks more professional" but what yields higher efficiency. That well-being of workers increases their efficiency is widely accepted across many fields, why should it be different in the army? I admit that I am not sure that having unhinged sex actually increases happiness of the typical marine, but I also don't know for sure that it doesn't. Are there any actual studies? Has it been even tried in an at least remotely relevant setting? In general, I would just expect more fact-based argument from you in particular than this essential "it doesn't feel right". I simply disagree with your starting premise. If I accepted your premise that introducing sex into a small group of people confined together actually made the group more functional then I'd be all for it. But I don't. We're both making the same argument, that functionality and rationality is important when it comes to nuclear submarines. Where we differ is simply whether sexual competition within an isolated group makes things better. You have a valid point but you need to balance it with the sexual repression you are advocating. It's not particularly healthy either. Prohibition didn't work especially well either but I don't see anyone suggesting we introduce LSD and gambling to the nuclear deterrent.
Oh come on Kwark, I understand your points but that one is simply a bad argument. 4 months of sexual frustration is not the same as 4 months of poker abstinence. There is an argument to be made that allowing your guys to release their sexual tension is to be balanced with getting rid of some potential conflicts due to jealousy and whatnot. If your guys suffer from LSD severage, you have fucked up badly by allowing them in in the first place, while every human being will be in a better place mentally if he's not sexually frustrated to death for months.
I have no opinion, it seems there are no good solution. But don't dismiss any argument that comes your way with such bad analogies, please 
|
United States43543 Posts
On April 21 2017 02:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:26 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:15 Eridanus wrote:
Maybe all men need to be banned from submarines and space missions?
Can't believe this sexism is going on here, 2017. But then maybe I am naive at the masochism present in gaming culture. It is this weird debate where the argument revolves around people having romantic feelings being this unsolvable problem for the military. The same military that we expect to deal with complex, nuanced conflicts all over the world, sometimes without limited input from the US directly. But a man and a woman fucking on a sub will will somehow be more challenging to deal with than alcoholism or something. Can't we be opposed to both alcoholism and interpersonal drama on our nuclear submarines? It's not like anyone here is saying that we're fine with alcoholism on a nuclear submarine but against fucking. I don't think this is really all that complex. There are a few jobs in which you're expected to change your entire life and be a 24/7 professional while you occupy them. This is one of them. It doesn't mean nobody in the military can fuck. It doesn't mean women or gays can't be in the military. It just means that if you're currently stationed on a nuclear submarine then be a sailor first. That's all. It's the same with mind altering substances, gambling and a bunch of other things we ask them not to do. At least in Her Majesty's Royal Navy, there was no rule against drinking until this incident: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11037096/Royal-Navy-alcohol-consumption-curbed-after-fatal-submarine-shooting.htmlAnd insofar as I know, there's still no rule against drinking (just guidelines). Now you can obviously oppose this and feel such a rule should be imposed. I expect gambling is similar, and low stakes poker games will happen as a way to pass the time, which you could also oppose, I guess. But I also suspect such rules will be instantly broken (if the 1920s can serve as a warning). I also suspect that the environment will not actually improve. Obviously things like getting shitfaced should not be tolerated (and probably already aren't), nor getting into serious gambling debts (harder to detect and act against). But some light drinking and cardplay seems like a great way for people in a high stress environment to let off some steam.
Kinda reinforces my point. A drunken sailor on a nuclear submarine shooting the commander of the submarine is the kind of story that should literally never happen. The chain of fuckups that need to happen in order for that result is insane. If, for whatever reason, Britain needs to launch a nuclear missile the ability to do that should not be dependent upon whether the commander of a nuclear submarine is currently trying to deescalate a shitfaced crew from killing each other.
If your intent was to say "look, they drink, surely sex can't be worse than that", well, I don't disagree with your point, I just don't think they should be doing either.
|
House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who stunned Washington with an announcement that he is not running for reelection, might not even finish his remaining term.
Chaffetz told KSL News Radio’s Doug Wright that he may not finish out his full term through 2018. But he said he’s still debating the decision amid uncertainty over how Utah would establish a process to replace him early.
"I will continue to weigh the options, but I might depart early," Chaffetz told the Utah radio host on Thursday.
A Chaffetz spokeswoman didn't immediately return a request for comment.
Chaffetz on Wednesday announced he wouldn’t be on the ballot in 2018, either for a sixth term in the House or a bid for Senate.
He didn’t rule out another bid for public office in the future, such as a run for Utah governor in 2020.
Chaffetz cited a desire to spend more time with his family in Utah and return to the private sector.
His departure is all the more unusual given that the 2018 midterm elections are still 19 months away and that he’s one of the most ambitious and high-profile committee chairmen on Capitol Hill.
Had Chaffetz chosen to stay in Congress, he could have served as Oversight chairman through 2020 under the House GOP’s rules that limit members to three terms atop committees.
An early departure would also set in motion a race to succeed Chaffetz on the powerful committee. Aides to Oversight Committee members declined to say Wednesday if they were interested in running for the chairmanship.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/329716-chaffetz-considering-early-departure-from-congress
|
I saw a report saying that Chaffetz might have been offered a spot on Fox News.
|
On April 21 2017 02:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:36 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 02:26 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:15 Eridanus wrote:
Maybe all men need to be banned from submarines and space missions?
Can't believe this sexism is going on here, 2017. But then maybe I am naive at the masochism present in gaming culture. It is this weird debate where the argument revolves around people having romantic feelings being this unsolvable problem for the military. The same military that we expect to deal with complex, nuanced conflicts all over the world, sometimes without limited input from the US directly. But a man and a woman fucking on a sub will will somehow be more challenging to deal with than alcoholism or something. Can't we be opposed to both alcoholism and interpersonal drama on our nuclear submarines? It's not like anyone here is saying that we're fine with alcoholism on a nuclear submarine but against fucking. I don't think this is really all that complex. There are a few jobs in which you're expected to change your entire life and be a 24/7 professional while you occupy them. This is one of them. It doesn't mean nobody in the military can fuck. It doesn't mean women or gays can't be in the military. It just means that if you're currently stationed on a nuclear submarine then be a sailor first. That's all. It's the same with mind altering substances, gambling and a bunch of other things we ask them not to do. At least in Her Majesty's Royal Navy, there was no rule against drinking until this incident: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11037096/Royal-Navy-alcohol-consumption-curbed-after-fatal-submarine-shooting.htmlAnd insofar as I know, there's still no rule against drinking (just guidelines). Now you can obviously oppose this and feel such a rule should be imposed. I expect gambling is similar, and low stakes poker games will happen as a way to pass the time, which you could also oppose, I guess. But I also suspect such rules will be instantly broken (if the 1920s can serve as a warning). I also suspect that the environment will not actually improve. Obviously things like getting shitfaced should not be tolerated (and probably already aren't), nor getting into serious gambling debts (harder to detect and act against). But some light drinking and cardplay seems like a great way for people in a high stress environment to let off some steam. Kinda reinforces my point. A drunken sailor on a nuclear submarine shooting the commander of the submarine is the kind of story that should literally never happen. The chain of fuckups that need to happen in order for that result is insane. If, for whatever reason, Britain needs to launch a nuclear missile the ability to do that should not be dependent upon whether the commander of a nuclear submarine is currently trying to deescalate a shitfaced crew from killing each other. If your intent was to say "look, they drink, surely sex can't be worse than that", well, I don't disagree with your point, I just don't think they should be doing either.
I can agree that alcohol is a terrible idea unless you make a rule of, like, one beer maximum when all your duties are over and strictly check there is no exception.
|
Edit: no need to quote anyone in particular 
It seems to me that an outright ban of sexual relations would make more difficult for women on board to get anticonceptionals, which would be especially important for long deployments.
An odd coincidence, but I had just read this page on wikipedia before coming here to this thread (it having been linked on a twitter page):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Acadia_(AD-42)
|
United States43543 Posts
On April 21 2017 02:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:33 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 21 2017 02:30 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:22 opisska wrote:On April 21 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Do you allow them to eat and shit? Why not sex then? Isn't it just your personal preconception, that a given bodily function is "less professional"? This shouldn't really be about "what looks more professional" but what yields higher efficiency. That well-being of workers increases their efficiency is widely accepted across many fields, why should it be different in the army? I admit that I am not sure that having unhinged sex actually increases happiness of the typical marine, but I also don't know for sure that it doesn't. Are there any actual studies? Has it been even tried in an at least remotely relevant setting? In general, I would just expect more fact-based argument from you in particular than this essential "it doesn't feel right". I simply disagree with your starting premise. If I accepted your premise that introducing sex into a small group of people confined together actually made the group more functional then I'd be all for it. But I don't. We're both making the same argument, that functionality and rationality is important when it comes to nuclear submarines. Where we differ is simply whether sexual competition within an isolated group makes things better. You have a valid point but you need to balance it with the sexual repression you are advocating. It's not particularly healthy either. Prohibition didn't work especially well either but I don't see anyone suggesting we introduce LSD and gambling to the nuclear deterrent. Oh come on Kwark, I understand your points but that one is simply a bad argument. 4 months of sexual frustration is not the same as 4 months of poker abstinence. There is an argument to be made that allowing your guys to release their sexual tension is to be balanced with getting rid of some potential conflicts due to jealousy and whatnot. If your guys suffer from LSD severage, you have fucked up badly by allowing them in in the first place, while every human being will be in a better place mentally if he's not sexually frustrated to death for months. I have no opinion, it seems there are no good solution. But don't dismiss any argument that comes your way with such bad analogies, please
If it turns out that sexual relationships within a small group of people who have no way to spend any time apart from each other and who are forced to work together in a job that has world ending stakes actually improves the functionality of the group then I'm all for it. If humans literally couldn't work after months of not getting laid then sure, we need our nuclear submarines to work, getting laid shouldn't just be tolerated, it should be prescribed. I disagree wholly with the premise that turning the group incestuous will help but if the premise is true then the logical conclusion, sex on nuclear submarines is fine, is also right.
At this point we're disagreeing purely on the starting premise. In my experience I've not yet seen any group that became more functional after two members started fucking, stopped fucking, and then one of the two started fucking another group member while all of the group still had to work and live together. But maybe you have. And if you have I can certainly see why you'd want that dynamic going on with our nuclear deterrent.
|
On April 21 2017 02:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:36 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2017 02:26 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:15 Eridanus wrote:
Maybe all men need to be banned from submarines and space missions?
Can't believe this sexism is going on here, 2017. But then maybe I am naive at the masochism present in gaming culture. It is this weird debate where the argument revolves around people having romantic feelings being this unsolvable problem for the military. The same military that we expect to deal with complex, nuanced conflicts all over the world, sometimes without limited input from the US directly. But a man and a woman fucking on a sub will will somehow be more challenging to deal with than alcoholism or something. Can't we be opposed to both alcoholism and interpersonal drama on our nuclear submarines? It's not like anyone here is saying that we're fine with alcoholism on a nuclear submarine but against fucking. I don't think this is really all that complex. There are a few jobs in which you're expected to change your entire life and be a 24/7 professional while you occupy them. This is one of them. It doesn't mean nobody in the military can fuck. It doesn't mean women or gays can't be in the military. It just means that if you're currently stationed on a nuclear submarine then be a sailor first. That's all. It's the same with mind altering substances, gambling and a bunch of other things we ask them not to do. At least in Her Majesty's Royal Navy, there was no rule against drinking until this incident: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11037096/Royal-Navy-alcohol-consumption-curbed-after-fatal-submarine-shooting.htmlAnd insofar as I know, there's still no rule against drinking (just guidelines). Now you can obviously oppose this and feel such a rule should be imposed. I expect gambling is similar, and low stakes poker games will happen as a way to pass the time, which you could also oppose, I guess. But I also suspect such rules will be instantly broken (if the 1920s can serve as a warning). I also suspect that the environment will not actually improve. Obviously things like getting shitfaced should not be tolerated (and probably already aren't), nor getting into serious gambling debts (harder to detect and act against). But some light drinking and cardplay seems like a great way for people in a high stress environment to let off some steam. Kinda reinforces my point. A drunken sailor on a nuclear submarine shooting the commander of the submarine is the kind of story that should literally never happen. The chain of fuckups that need to happen in order for that result is insane. If, for whatever reason, Britain needs to launch a nuclear missile the ability to do that should not be dependent upon whether the commander of a nuclear submarine is currently trying to deescalate a shitfaced crew from killing each other. If your intent was to say "look, they drink, surely sex can't be worse than that", well, I don't disagree with your point, I just don't think they should be doing either.
Great. But you're ignoring the human condition. I can agree that alcohol probably shouldn't be allowed on nuclear submarines (and alcoholics shouldn't be allowed to crew them). It's relatively easy to enforce. A prohibition of sex, however, is nigh impossible to enforce (except a posteriori, which is too late to be useful). So it's far better to discourage it, expect it to happen, and educate everybody on how to deal with any tensions that arise from it.
|
On April 21 2017 02:46 Sbrubbles wrote:Edit: no need to quote anyone in particular It seems to me that an outright ban of sexual relations would make more difficult for women on board to get anticonceptionals, which would be especially important for long deployments. An odd coincidence, but I had just read this page on wikipedia before coming here to this thread (it having been linked on a twitter page): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Acadia_(AD-42)
And given that sex will happen anyway, this seems like an extremely stupid thing to do. In actual fact, I think there should be a sufficient supply of condoms in the medical supplies, and any sane female crewmember will have an IUD or similar (but that is of course her prerogative). Neither pregnancy nor gonorrhea sound like much fun aboard a submarine.
|
There are two House Republican chairmen tasked with possibly investigating President Trump. One of them — Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.) — messed it up so badly that he had to step aside. And now the other is retiring from Congress.
...
Even before Chaffetz announced his abrupt exit, his political luck had suffered a steep decline when Trump was elected. As oversight chairman, he was preparing to spend four years investigating President Hillary Clinton’s alleged scandals and misdeeds. Then the Republicans unexpectedly seized control of the White House, leaving Chaffetz with the unenviable task of policing his own party. It was a fraught job to begin with, and his casual attitude toward the Trump family’s potential conflicts of interest — demonstrated in his interview with me last month — has only increased the pressure on him.
“Aside from Trump and Clinton,” one Utah Republican told me last month, “nobody’s fortunes changed more on presidential election night than Jason Chaffetz.”
It's one thing to shrug off clearly partisan efforts to get you to investigate a president, and most presidents are careful to avoid doing the kinds of things that put you in that position. But Trump has no such compunction. He's not afraid to saddle you with investigating his wild, evidence-free claims. And not only that; he will gladly take you on publicly if you run afoul of him.
For Chaffetz and Nunes, that leads to decisions between giving in to extraordinary — and in many cases, legitimate — public pressure to investigate Trump and doing what your president and party want you to.
Nunes erred way too much toward the latter and paid the price. And you can bet an ambitious and smart politician like Chaffetz knows this whole thing is a lose-lose situation for him.
www.washingtonpost.com
|
Top House Republicans may be nearing a significant breakthrough among some key players on efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, one month after a Republican health care bill was pulled from the House floor.
Conservative House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadow and moderate Tuesday Group leader Tom MacArthur are working toward a deal that could bring 18-20 new "Yes" votes from the conference's conservative wing, according to a source familiar with the talks. But it's not clear there would be enough votes in the broader GOP House conference to pass the bill.
The White House and GOP leadership have been involved in the talks and are aware of the latest progress, the source added.
www.cnn.com
|
On April 21 2017 02:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2017 02:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 21 2017 02:33 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 21 2017 02:30 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:22 opisska wrote:On April 21 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2017 01:56 Acrofales wrote:[quote] 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. Do you allow them to eat and shit? Why not sex then? Isn't it just your personal preconception, that a given bodily function is "less professional"? This shouldn't really be about "what looks more professional" but what yields higher efficiency. That well-being of workers increases their efficiency is widely accepted across many fields, why should it be different in the army? I admit that I am not sure that having unhinged sex actually increases happiness of the typical marine, but I also don't know for sure that it doesn't. Are there any actual studies? Has it been even tried in an at least remotely relevant setting? In general, I would just expect more fact-based argument from you in particular than this essential "it doesn't feel right". I simply disagree with your starting premise. If I accepted your premise that introducing sex into a small group of people confined together actually made the group more functional then I'd be all for it. But I don't. We're both making the same argument, that functionality and rationality is important when it comes to nuclear submarines. Where we differ is simply whether sexual competition within an isolated group makes things better. You have a valid point but you need to balance it with the sexual repression you are advocating. It's not particularly healthy either. Prohibition didn't work especially well either but I don't see anyone suggesting we introduce LSD and gambling to the nuclear deterrent. Oh come on Kwark, I understand your points but that one is simply a bad argument. 4 months of sexual frustration is not the same as 4 months of poker abstinence. There is an argument to be made that allowing your guys to release their sexual tension is to be balanced with getting rid of some potential conflicts due to jealousy and whatnot. If your guys suffer from LSD severage, you have fucked up badly by allowing them in in the first place, while every human being will be in a better place mentally if he's not sexually frustrated to death for months. I have no opinion, it seems there are no good solution. But don't dismiss any argument that comes your way with such bad analogies, please If it turns out that sexual relationships within a small group of people who have no way to spend any time apart from each other and who are forced to work together in a job that has world ending stakes actually improves the functionality of the group then I'm all for it. If humans literally couldn't work after months of not getting laid then sure, we need our nuclear submarines to work, getting laid shouldn't just be tolerated, it should be prescribed. I disagree wholly with the premise that turning the group incestuous will help but if the premise is true then the logical conclusion, sex on nuclear submarines is fine, is also right. At this point we're disagreeing purely on the starting premise. In my experience I've not yet seen any group that became more functional after two members started fucking, stopped fucking, and then one of the two started fucking another group member while all of the group still had to work and live together. But maybe you have. And if you have I can certainly see why you'd want that dynamic going on with our nuclear deterrent.
You are a bit too abrasive for me today, and as I say, I don't really have an opinion.
I have seen closed, high functioning, groups of people doing pretty well with rather free love and sex lives within, and people in those groups having stories without starting to kill each other. Whether it's better to go full repressive and deal with 120 crew members sexually frustrated (after 4-6 months you really will be), I sincerely don't know.
Because my point is not that you can't function without getting laid, but that people are generally calmer, more relaxed and more focused when they are not entirely deprived of sex, and you said yourself you wanted maximum efficiency.
So again, I think the only unresaonable position here is to pretend to be totally certain about what is optimal. It's really not that simple, either way.
But enough sub sex, maybe :-)
|
On April 21 2017 03:06 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +
Top House Republicans may be nearing a significant breakthrough among some key players on efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, one month after a Republican health care bill was pulled from the House floor.
Conservative House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadow and moderate Tuesday Group leader Tom MacArthur are working toward a deal that could bring 18-20 new "Yes" votes from the conference's conservative wing, according to a source familiar with the talks. But it's not clear there would be enough votes in the broader GOP House conference to pass the bill.
The White House and GOP leadership have been involved in the talks and are aware of the latest progress, the source added.
www.cnn.com
Greaseball congressional Republicans aren't averse to removing protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Go figure!
|
Everyone get stoned and decide Sub Sex was the topic of the day?
|
On April 21 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
Everyone get stoned and decide Sub Sex was the topic of the day?
Well, feel free to mention spineless Dems at any point.
|
United States43543 Posts
On April 21 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
Everyone get stoned and decide Sub Sex was the topic of the day?
I'll take sub sex over electability every fucking time.
|
On April 21 2017 02:43 Plansix wrote:
I saw a report saying that Chaffetz might have been offered a spot on Fox News.
Don't see how that would be worth it. Whole thing seems fishy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
