Re: In today's news...
from what I have seen, you appear to be completely missing the arguments placed against you, Serifyn.
1) What difference do you see in chances of rape between A) a woman who is part of the combat group, and fights shoulder to shoulder with a gun in hand, and B) a woman who is not allowed to do A, but who's job it is to stay back in camp to cook and clean and patch wounds. The latter kind is around already, and by rape logic, seems the much more attractive option.
you keep saying adding A would be a 'fucking disaster', but I think that those women would have a smaller chance of becoming a victim than the already existant issues that are apparently so widespread within the US military.
So far, your only argument against this seems to be 'they'll be raped, it's gonna happen, rape rape rape.' which is what Ranger Princess there was talking about with her comment you didn't recognize. That appears to me to be the only thing you can see happening were this to be implemented now, which i find to be rather insulting, the same as teh other two women you've been talking to seem to have taken it. Please, state your reasoning behind this, I don't understand why placing more aggressive and competent women in the armed forces would increase the chances of said women getting raped.
Perhaps I'm not doing a very good job explaining what the problem is.
In the real world, if you "rape rape rape" you get convicted of rape rape rape and you in turn get rape rape rape while in prison. There is a reason why rape is so prevalent in the Military, it is because it is not talked about, the people in positions of power generally don't go out of their way to investigate allegations. Sexual harassment is rampant all over the place in the real world, even in places where you can lose your job if you do it, this is because it isn't illegal, but it is still something a company can be sued for if they don't follow up properly and usually all people get is a warning.
There is no such system currently existing within the US Military, you aren't going to be fired for sexually harassing a female comrade, you might be disciplined but this isn't likely, the officers would be more likely to tell the female soldier to 'sack up' and deal with it themselves and this is the essence of the problem right now.
Do you believe women have the right to do their job without being sexually harassed? Because I'm sure there are millions of people who will say that they do, getting there is the issue.
OAMP said:
And the key point is integration has happened in plenty of other places without having issues explode like that.
Once again, reports are that sexual assault is an "epidemic" in the US military, i can't speak for any other group.
Ranger Princess said:
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I'll just say this. I have dozens of friends who served time in the army, air force, and navy, and I know most of them had to kill people during their tour. Does it make me happy? No, but it doesn't make them bad people. It's just what had to be done.
Most of the military people I've met have been really awesome. Some are really close friends that helped me get through some really hard times in my life. I wouldn't change being friends with them for the world, and I would definitely not hesitate to call them a good person.
I was merely pointing out the irony of calling a trained group of professional killers a 'a group of good human beings'.
Its just like the irony of calling all soldiers 'Heroes' when most of them probably just sit on one base or another for their entire career, if they are called to duty it's usually to serve as enforcers for some sort of government agenda, but i won't get into politics.
Ranger Princess said:
I don't blame them at all for having to kill. I blame the world for being a place where such a profession is necessary.
There are some countries which require military service; Israel and South Korea come to mind, but in America and Canada you sign up for it, you know full well that in signing up, you may be required to kill because it your job. you are a soldier.
You most certainly could blame someone for putting themselves in a position where killing is their job, if you were a pacifist you could do something else, you choose the military because it has good benefits and they take control of your life, giving some people the direction and structure they wouldn't be able to find otherwise.
I'm not saying these people are bad, i'm just saying that you can't feel sorry for someone who has to kill someone else because they signed up for it, if you believe homicide is wrong and bad wouldn't that make someone bad and wrong for doing it? Irony. Hypocrisy. Sin.
As far as this world being a terrible place where such a profession is necessary all i can say is that "at the end of the day, as long as there's two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead. " (not to be taken literally of course)
It is human nature to kill, we life in a world of haves and have nots, not every cause is noble and there is no 'Good and Evil' there is only 'Us and Them', everyone wants their piece of the pie and there aren't enough slices for everyone, this is why there is war and why there will always be war.
Faceless Negrepper said:
You seriously just said that last part?
Yes, i thought it was a
You must be registered to see the links
.