1. #3281
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Does being promoted to e-5 or e-6 put you in a position where you're in front line combat duty? There is a difference between relative fitness and absolute fitness.
    No. Most people deploy as a unit in their whole group unless you're in smaller medical units like mine where people are assigned to PROFIS slots which get attached to a unit that needs a supplement.

    Rank often has no bearing on whether you deploy unless you're an e-9 which is the highest enlisted pay grade or an o7 which is the first rank of generals

  2. #3282
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by purebalance View Post
    No. Most people deploy as a unit in their whole group unless you're in smaller medical units like mine where people are assigned to PROFIS slots which get attached to a unit that needs a supplement.

    Rank often has no bearing on whether you deploy unless you're an e-9 which is the highest enlisted pay grade or an o7 which is the first rank of generals
    Than relative fitness takes precedence over absolute fitness. There is no reason to exclude perfectly viable officers based on a secondary qualification (fitness) because the average physical capacity of women is smaller than that of men. There is perfectly valid reasoning, therefore, behind having separate physical requirements; whether you find the requirements too low compared to men is a different matter, and is ultimately subjective.

  3. #3283
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Except children that are raised with two parents supporting them are going to be raised better.
    It doesn't matter.

    I see no reason the child's rights usurp the man's.

    Were it his choice that kid wouldn't even exist. Were it the mother's choice the kid wouldn't exist either.

  4. #3284
    It wont ever be taken seriously because its got "Men" in it.
    Replace it with a woman and bingo.

  5. #3285
    Quote Originally Posted by purebalance View Post
    No. Most people deploy as a unit in their whole group unless you're in smaller medical units like mine where people are assigned to PROFIS slots which get attached to a unit that needs a supplement.

    Rank often has no bearing on whether you deploy unless you're an e-9 which is the highest enlisted pay grade or an o7 which is the first rank of generals
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Than relative fitness takes precedence over absolute fitness. There is no reason to exclude perfectly viable officers based on a secondary qualification (fitness) because the average physical capacity of women is smaller than that of men. There is perfectly valid reasoning, therefore, behind having separate physical requirements; whether you find the requirements too low compared to men is a different matter, and is ultimately subjective.
    Ultimately, if the fitness doesn't actually matter, I'm not sure why anyone should be receiving bonus points for it. It seems to me that both the gender basis and the rewards based on physical performance (for either gender) could stand some reworking. I'd much rather just have a purely binary pass/fail system for each particular job. If someone's good enough, they're good enough, and I don't really care if they're male or female, and I don't really care if they can exceed what's good enough.

  6. #3286
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    There's no rational reason to deny men the ability to walk away from a pregnancy/child they never wanted to begin with.
    The well being of a child is not enouph rational reason?

    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Regardless of where women derive the ability from, that doesn't mean men shouldn't have an analogous ability.
    You need to stop pretending that abortion versus child birth is some sort of ability men do not have. Being forced the be the one to bare the burden is not an ability. It is a burden that men cannot share and are only held accountable in sharing the financial one. I assure you, if women could have men deal with these physical results of sex, they would share it. It is only the financial burden that can be shared.

  7. #3287
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    The well being of a child is not enouph rational reason?
    Not when there's the option to abort and not have the child.

  8. #3288
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    It doesn't matter.

    I see no reason the child's rights usurp the man's.

    Were it his choice that kid wouldn't even exist. Were it the mother's choice the kid wouldn't exist either.
    Stop acting like the man is powerless. You have a fool proof option to prevent a child from ever being created but apparently that doesn't count because reasons. You engaged in an activity you knew could create a child. You have a hand in the creation of a dependent living being. Whether the mother could abort or not does not chance either of those facts.

    This whole view of "well I don't want it so this child I created isn't my responsibility" is incredibly childish and a fantastic example of why your movement is a joke.

  9. #3289
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Stop acting like the man is powerless. You have a fool proof option to prevent a child from ever being created but apparently that doesn't count because reasons. You engaged in an activity you knew could create a child. You have a hand in the creation of a dependent living being. Whether the mother could abort or not does not chance either of those facts.

    This whole view of "well I don't want it so this child I created isn't my responsibility" is incredibly childish and a fantastic example of why your movement is a joke.
    You sound exactly like a person arguing against abortion in some parts and contraception in other parts.


    Also Laize, I don't believe that story you quoted at all. Sounds like a troll story.
    Last edited by v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk; 2012-12-02 at 01:41 AM.

  10. #3290
    This does make some sense , sharing to facebook!

  11. #3291
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    You sound exactly like a person arguing against abortion in some parts and contraception in other parts.
    Indeed. It's this hypocrisy which is why I stopped responding.

  12. #3292
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    You sound exactly like a person arguing against abortion in some parts and contraception in other parts.
    Only if you're deliberately being obtuse. Pro-lifers want to control a woman's body. I don't. Anti Contraception people want to control your sex life. I don't. All I'm saying is that if your actions result in a child you have an obligation to take care of it to the best of your ability.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Indeed. It's this hypocrisy which is why I stopped responding.
    So what is this then?

  13. #3293
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Only if you're deliberately being obtuse. Pro-lifers want to control a woman's body. I don't. Anti Contraception people want to control your sex life. I don't. All I'm saying is that if your actions result in a child you have an obligation to take care of it to the best of your ability.
    It's not deliberately being obtuse to recognize the same arguments that are made for other causes.

  14. #3294
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    It's not deliberately being obtuse to recognize the same arguments that are made for other causes.
    Frankly, this whole "ANYONE WHO ADVOCATES YOU DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS IS JUST LIKE A PRO LIFER" shit is pretty worn out dude.

  15. #3295
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Frankly, this whole "ANYONE WHO ADVOCATES YOU DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS IS JUST LIKE A PRO LIFER" shit is pretty worn out dude.
    It's the way you use it without any regard to the opposing argument as if it is the final word on the matter.

  16. #3296
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    It's the way you use it without any regard to the opposing argument as if it is the final word on the matter.
    Its really not. I'm saying that an action can result in a child. Take all the measures you want to lessen that chance. If you're a woman you can abort because your bodily autonomy > the chance that fetus will come to term. But once it comes to term and there is now a child with no ability to care for itself those who created it are obligated to care for it. Its really simple.

  17. #3297
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Frankly, this whole "ANYONE WHO ADVOCATES YOU DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS IS JUST LIKE A PRO LIFER" shit is pretty worn out dude.
    Nah man, have sex without any remorse! Screw responsibility, that's a thing of the past.

    My view: I'm not Pro-Life, too many times the argument is turned around to something completely absurd. I'm Pro-Child. Ever have one? It'll change your views pretty damn quickly.

    inb4 rape scenario

  18. #3298
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Being forced to support a child he created doesn't violate a man's reproductive rights.
    You are talking about after a child is conceived and I am talking about before it is. If there is no child conceived I do not see why a man cannot state that he does not want children and will not support them and not have that legally up held in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Women would then have the option to either sex with the man knowing that there is a chance she may become pregnant and end up being the sole provider for the child. If she chooses to have sex with the man after knowing that she is agreeing to the terms and conditions. And if an unwanted pregnancy does happen she still has the following options

    1. Have the baby and keep it knowing she will be the sole provider.
    2. Have the baby and put it up for adoption
    3. Abortion (if that is not a non-option for her)

    The only thing that changes for the woman is option one and that is only that she would not have the financial backing of a man.

    Now when a woman over looks the man's wishes for whatever reason it does violate a man's reproductive rights because he no longer has a choice in with who and when he becomes a father.

    How is giving a man the option to "walk away" before a child is even conceived hurts the woman or the child? How?
    My question has never been answered

  19. #3299
    I've answered that question at least 2 dozen times.

  20. #3300
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    It hurts them because they will be worse off financially?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •