171–180 of 799 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, invasive extra paperwork (enforced by criminal penalties, at least in theory) for something they say on the surface they won’t actually need. So very german (hah)
I suppose it's only a boring piece of extra paperwork until at some moment the permit stops being automatically issued.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree but in countries with larger populations, there are two reasons: 1) Women can have children, and after a major war a large section of the population may be killed, and its better to have more women than men, since you can repopulate faster. 2) Women take over a large share of industrial labor during wartime. This was a mistake the Germans made in WW2, because they were so mystified by Nazism. But in the US, w…
Easier to repopulate... at the expense of men being considered essentially disposable by the society. I should have as much right to not being forcefully sent to my death to wage billionaires' wars as the other half of population.
[flagged]
Sorry to burst your strawman argument, but I would support the same draft mechanism for women, as it is in Norway. But sure, continue to rail against equality and feminism for no reason.
Busification, when?
Why does it exclude women? War is not just physical strength, but also logistics, operating vehicles, operating drones, nursing, and so on. All tasks that women are well capable of.
How does feminism survive if this becomes the norm? If young men feel like they're expected to give more to their society it's natural to expect renumeration financial, socially or politically. Nordic countries don't seem to have this problem, but their conscription laws are quite relaxed compared to what the future will likely hold. A declining youth population almost certainly means greater youth repression (higher…
How can a state survive if this weren't the norm? Why would men fight and die for a government that views their own wives and daughters as cannon fodder? If the government is conscripting men's wives to war, is it really in the interest of men to risk their own lives to protect that government? If the government took my wife and sent her to war, I'd sooner firebomb a government office than join up to fight for the go…
Why does it exclude women? War is not just physical strength, but also logistics, operating vehicles, operating drones, nursing, and so on. All tasks that women are well capable of.
Honestly, I don't think the problem with war is that not enough women die in it. It makes more sense to argue against forcing anyone against their will to fight in a war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I reject your accusation of transphobia. I point out that you seem to be fine with discriminating against some males but not others.
Trans women are not male, including biologically if you assume HRT. This is overcompensating rationality to shit on a group of people that are functionally intersex for "biological" distinction. And we're not even talking about a context where biology matters. You just wanted to vice signal. If you want to make this an SBGG criticism, I'd love to see you even get close to proving abuse beyond singular instances. Even…
It’s interesting to read the discussion here through the lens of obligations vs rights. It would seem the rights are definitely winning.
Unsurprisingly when people here engage in serious politics beyond a desire to enrich themselves, those politics tend to take on a distinctly libertarian bent. I’m not sure what else people expect though, this is a very sheltered group with relatively limited skills outside of specific technical areas. To put it another way this forum skews selfish.