Jump to content

In other news...


tkdguy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Cygnia said:

 

Honestly, there maybe more to the story than we think, but as the Police Officer doesn't appear to know the laws he is enforcing, and is indeed threatening a 12 year old kid with unlawful incarceration (see the not knowing the law bit) ... yeah, his ass needs suspending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wcw43921 said:

 

That's exactly what I was afraid of when they reinstated Selective Service in 1980. There's no particular reason to exempt women except that "it's the way we've always done it" and I thought it was clearly unconstitutional even at that point in time.

 

I don't mind women joining the military voluntarily. I don't mind women serving in combat roles. But I'll admit that I'm a dinosaur enough to mind women getting drafted then thrust into combat roles when they don't want to be there. I'm not thrilled about men being drafted then thrust into combat roles when they don't want to be there (though I can see some scenarios where the country might need more men than volunteerism could quickly provide). I much prefer an all-volunteer force of professionals who've been well-trained to a perhaps larger force of people who don't particularly want to be there and who've been half-trained.

 

I don't see how you can keep women indefinitely out of being drafted for infantry combat roles. Eventually the disparity in treatment between men and women will come up in the courts and some judge at some point will rule that unwilling girls have to be slogging through the jungles of Vietnam alongside the boys.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2019 at 4:09 PM, Hermit said:

 

I think this should count for a severe reduction in sentence time.

They were already low security prisioners on work detail.

Any more reduction of the sentence could end up with them going scot free, potentially disrupting the whole "learning not to do crimes" part.

 

On 2/21/2019 at 6:07 PM, Starlord said:

Jussie Smollett arrested, charged with felony

 

First of all, innocent until proven guilty, of course. 

 

This is pretty awful.  Damages REAL victims, many of whom already have problems getting people to believe them, wastes valuable taxpayer money and police time/resources, and anti-LGBTQ and race-baiters something to crow about. 

 

On 2/21/2019 at 7:17 PM, Hermit said:

 

Yeah, hard to remember that "innocent until proven guilty" bit sometimes, our nation seems very quick to judge and eager for blood these days.

 

But if he did do this, yup, a lot of harm.

There is a huge gulf between "the presumed perpetrator not being charged" and "you getting charged for making up a crime".

 

On 2/21/2019 at 7:47 PM, archer said:

Back when I used to do political activism and blogging, I advocated, at the very least, that the agency which confiscated the money should NEVER get any of the money. Law enforcement agencies shouldn't have a profit motive for going after real crime, much less have a profit motive for going after innocent people. 

Personally I am unsure what the german law says on that mater. Prior to 2017, it was often to hard to take the money from Criminals at all. It aactually required a seperate process. But in 2017 we reformed the law, thus we have limited information about abuses.

 

16 hours ago, Cygnia said:

Warrior Women already existed in Mythology and where somewhat of a know viking fact outside of sexism circles.

And this despite (or because?) the Vikings seeming to love abducting women from every place they raided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, archer said:

 

That's exactly what I was afraid of when they reinstated Selective Service in 1980. There's no particular reason to exempt women except that "it's the way we've always done it" and I thought it was clearly unconstitutional even at that point in time. 

 

I don't mind women joining the military voluntarily. I don't mind women serving in combat roles. But I'll admit that I'm a dinosaur enough to mind women getting drafted then thrust into combat roles when they don't want to be there. I'm not thrilled about men being drafted then thrust into combat roles when they don't want to be there (though I can see some scenarios where the country might need more men than volunteerism could quickly provide). I much prefer an all-volunteer force of professionals who've been well-trained to a perhaps larger force of people who don't particularly want to be there and who've been half-trained.

 

I don't see how you can keep women indefinitely out of being drafted for infantry combat roles. Eventually the disparity in treatment between men and women will come up in the courts and some judge at some point will rule that unwilling girls have to be slogging through the jungles of Vietnam alongside the boys.

I only see a general issue with Draft, not with drafting women.

That specific laws like this differentiate between the genders is simply a form of "leftover sexism".

 

And it does take out one big argument of the anti-feminist/sexist groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, archer said:

 

That's exactly what I was afraid of when they reinstated Selective Service in 1980. There's no particular reason to exempt women except that "it's the way we've always done it" and I thought it was clearly unconstitutional even at that point in time.

 

I don't mind women joining the military voluntarily. I don't mind women serving in combat roles. But I'll admit that I'm a dinosaur enough to mind women getting drafted then thrust into combat roles when they don't want to be there. I'm not thrilled about men being drafted then thrust into combat roles when they don't want to be there (though I can see some scenarios where the country might need more men than volunteerism could quickly provide). I much prefer an all-volunteer force of professionals who've been well-trained to a perhaps larger force of people who don't particularly want to be there and who've been half-trained.

 

I don't see how you can keep women indefinitely out of being drafted for infantry combat roles. Eventually the disparity in treatment between men and women will come up in the courts and some judge at some point will rule that unwilling girls have to be slogging through the jungles of Vietnam alongside the boys.

 

 

 

My memory of the form from the 80s is that it already had check boxes for male and female, it's just that only men were required to fill out the form. That said, the US military has expressed that the volunteer fighting force is the way they want to go, to be able to control the quality of candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2019 at 1:08 PM, Badger said:

most of my pizza eating has become DiGiogno and fix at home.

Although I resort to that, I have made my own pizzas using dough from my bread machine. That may not be the best way to do it, though. The machine doesn't have a specific setting for pizza dough, though, so I'm sort of stuck.

 

The only pizza chain I use regularly is the take-and-bake of local chain Papa Murphy's. Their Cowboy Pizza is very tasty (pepperoni, sausage, black olives, and mushrooms). No frozen pizza is ever going to be quite that good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, archer said:

 

That's exactly what I was afraid of when they reinstated Selective Service in 1980. There's no particular reason to exempt women except that "it's the way we've always done it" and I thought it was clearly unconstitutional even at that point in time.

 

I don't mind women joining the military voluntarily. I don't mind women serving in combat roles. But I'll admit that I'm a dinosaur enough to mind women getting drafted then thrust into combat roles when they don't want to be there. I'm not thrilled about men being drafted then thrust into combat roles when they don't want to be there (though I can see some scenarios where the country might need more men than volunteerism could quickly provide). I much prefer an all-volunteer force of professionals who've been well-trained to a perhaps larger force of people who don't particularly want to be there and who've been half-trained.

 

I don't see how you can keep women indefinitely out of being drafted for infantry combat roles. Eventually the disparity in treatment between men and women will come up in the courts and some judge at some point will rule that unwilling girls have to be slogging through the jungles of Vietnam alongside the boys.

 

 

 

To be honest, I want to have rigid physical requirements to qualify for combat roles.  You want the best possible when it comes to life/death.  Though, as a result, it would probably eliminate most women from combat roles.  I am not sure whether that is good or bad, but I am not sure we can play around with equality in such a do or die environment.  I'll have to be labelled, if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

To be honest, I want to have rigid physical requirements to qualify for combat roles.  You want the best possible when it comes to life/death.  Though, as a result, it would probably eliminate most women from combat roles.  I am not sure whether that is good or bad, but I am not sure we can play around with equality in such a do or die environment.  I'll have to be labelled, if necessary.

 

I had a friend back in high school (aka the Stone Age) who I would have bet wouldn't pass the Marines minimum height requirement and if he passed their minimum weight requirement it would only have been if the doctor put his foot on the scales. But the guy was also tough as nails and his idea of having a good time in high school was to go on a five mile hike with a full pack (military weight). And he was obsessed with all things military and war gaming.

 

He came out of boot camp as a lance corporal (the Marine corp goes private, then Private first class, then Lance Corporal, then Corporal) and, due to an unlikely set of circumstances involving a tabletop wargame defending the base against a red force controlled by a group of high level officers, had offers to immediately join the staffs of his choice of two colonels and a general.

 

But he wanted tech training or to tote a rifle rather than be on an officer's staff.

 

I wouldn't have bet that he could have carried me off the battlefield. But I wouldn't have bet against him either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...