Article I was linked to regarding the Draft

TomwaIvory · 2016-06-08T07:40:42+00:00

http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-07-why-men-should-be-willing-to-die-for-women Apparently according to my discussion partner:...

[–]SporkTornado 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mistixs2 points 10 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]jtaylor73003 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SporkTornado 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]mistixs -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SporkTornado 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SporkTornado 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mistixs 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaneWhitman 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DaneWhitman 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Imnotmrabut 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheDude41 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheDude41 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[+]mistixs 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[+]mistixs 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Yet you had no problem with saying that women should be forced to protect/gestate a fetus inside of her body for 9 months (even in the case of rape).

I said yes Murdering children is reprehensible even if under the pretense of rape.

What does a WOMAN deserve in exchange for being forced to protect/gestate a fetus against her will?

She isn't forced, don't have sex don't have kids, women have more than a dozen forms of birth control.

How did the FETUS "earn" protection from the mother, who was a rape victim, & who is being forced to carry the pregnancy to term & not allowed an abortion?

Children are human beings, they deserve their right to life it does not need to be "earned" as it is an inalienable right under the constitution (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as hinted at in the preamble).

Even if such was the case, you'd have to legally prove that rape took place, in such a case I'd be willing to allow it though it's still reprehensible.

[+]mistixs 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

It's really hard to prove a rape.

And yeah. Ok. So a "child" deserves the "right to life". Then so do women, and that's why men should protect women.

Anyway...

Women give birth to the nation; men defend it.

The men going to war to defend the nation, are compensating for all the women who died giving birth to the nation. Even since the year 2000, the number of childbirth deaths[1] exceeded the number of combat[2] deaths from between 2.5x and 100x, depending on the year.

[1] http://qz.com/400530/american-mothers-die-in-childbirth-at-twice-the-rate-they-did-in-2000/

[2] http://www.statista.com/statistics/262894/western-coalition-soldiers-killed-in-afghanistan/

More women have died in childbirth throughout history than men in combat. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/03/saving-women-during-childbirth/

"The birthpangs make all men debtors of all women." - Teddy Roosevelt

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Then so do women, and that's why men should protect women.

Men ALSO deserve their right to life :)

Children tend to be more carefully dealt with as legally they are the responsibility of the parent. (i.e. No one forces two people to keep adults in their home and feed them).

Women have earned nothing and deserve nothing in exchange.

Women give birth to the nation; men defend it.

Men also participate in sex, they provide food and shelter. Men produce the water, energy, and trade of our society. Ask yourself: How many women are working on oil rigs? How many women drive cars?

Even since the year 2000, the number of childbirth deaths[1] exceeded the number of combat[2] deaths from between 2.5x and 100x, depending on the year.

Birth is not a tragedy, it is something Women WANT, and the majority of women DO want it. War is a tragedy, nobody wants it, and the majority of Men certainly do not want it.

More women have died in childbirth throughout history than men in combat. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/03/saving-women-during-childbirth/

More women have also eaten cake, I don't suppose you've noticed the difference between something DESIRABLE and something UNDESIRABLE.

"The birthpangs make all men debtors of all women." - Teddy Roosevelt

Nope. I'm not responsible for people wanting to eat cake and I'm not responsible for women WANTING to have children.

The lives of men belong to themselves, you will never take mine from me with your bigotry.

[+]mistixs -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]mistixs 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Does eating cake contribute to the perpetuation of the country?

Eating provides calories which keeps me alive so yes!

However, giving birth contributes to the perpetuation of the country

So does producing power, cleaning the water, and producing food - all jobs that are overwhelmingly male, meanwhile women continue to eat, drink, and consume electricity with no concern.

If no women ever gave birth again, the nation would die within a generation.

If men never had sex and gave women their sperm ever again the nation would die within a generation then.

Women being the ones perpetuating the country through childbirth means that men should be the ones defending the country.

What do men get for providing their sperm? When artificial wombs are created what should women lose or at that point should women be drafted?

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's painful, it's optional, and I am no way legally obligated to do it, so it's exactly like birth in all of those regards.

Oh, then again I don't bitch and moan about it as though it's forced on me as the end result (Fitness) is something I desire.

If you think Birth is equivalent to the draft come speak to me when women are legally forced to sign up to give birth at the age of 18 and when they risk $200,000+ fines, imprisonment, etc. if they refuse. Don't forget to have them imprisoned for treason if they attempt to dodge the birth draft, after all it is their responsibility as women right? Of course, even should their life be in danger during pregnancy that isn't an issue, they should be willing to give their lives for their country and surely that applies to both genders.

If you think that Women should not have to fight and that Birth constitutes their obligation to this country then the only way to be fair and equal is to also make that obligation a legal one.

Until then, I'll add this one last time:

I will never die for a woman, not today, not tomorrow and not 100 years from now. My life belongs to me, men owe women nothing, not our time, not our money, not our respect, and not our lives. Women will receive nothing they do not earn, and any human unwilling to accept the responsibility of their choices is not a human I would ever deem worthy of respect.

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men and Women should BE EQUALLY LEGALLY OBLIGATED to use their biological gifts for their country (or die trying)

Why? 81% of women already use their biological gifts in comparison to less than 1 of 5 men. It's not women's fault that most men aren't doing their duty.

Both are currently meeting demand, the draft isn't active right now because it's not necessary, what if women are only reproducing at 1% when war breaks out?

Anyway, can you answer MY question?

Parents are obligated to children, women vote for politicians which can indirectly or directly result in War as it did with Vietnam and WWII both of which utilized the draft.

Also: Should disabled people not have equal rights because they don't have an equal chance of being drafted?

You're literally comparing WOMEN to DISABLED PEOPLE. HOLY FUCK, you think nothing of them do you?

[–]mistixs0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well technically if we're looking for "equality", and men are women are both equally obligated to use their biological gifts for their country, then 81% of men would have to go to war, in order for it to be equal.

Parents are obligated to children, women vote for politicians which can indirectly or directly result in War as it did with Vietnam and WWII both of which utilized the draft.

Sure, women can vote for politicians which can lead to war & draft, which is a violation of human rights, but men can also vote for politicians which can lead to abortion being legalized, which is a violation of human rights, in your opinion.

You're literally comparing WOMEN to DISABLED PEOPLE. HOLY FUCK, you think nothing of them do you?

I'm both a woman, as well as someone who would be considered disabled by the military, & thus wouldn't be allowed in the military, even if I volunteered.

If our goal is "equality for ALL", then why do disabled people get a pass? Why are they able to get the right to vote, even if their/our bodies aren't the ones being immediately put at risk?

Compared to men's bodies, women's bodies (and minds - it's been proven that women get PTSD much more easily than men, & react much more negatively in the face of violence as men, & with much more distress) are a disability/liability, when it comes to warfare. I don't think of this as "thinking nothing of them", because I don't think that men having capacity for warfare is anything to be proud of.

By the way, thinking that comparing women to disabled people, means that I "think nothing of" women, just indicates that you "think nothing of" disabled people (which is ableist), and believe that I do too. Which I don't.

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, it's not an equal draft, because being drafted would have a much more negative impact on a woman than a man

Don't care. Not every man is equally strong. We're all forced to die. If you die it's your fault, not mine.

Are you going to answer the rest of my arguments?

You're a woman who:

Believes women deserve adoration and protection because they have a cunt.
Believes Men are obligated to die for women because statistically men are stronger.
Does not believe the law should FORCE women to use their biological gifts, does believe that the law should FORCE MEN TO DIE FOR WOMEN.
Linked me to an article by a sexual abuser stating that men should be willing to die for women.

My life is mine, your only disability is your narcissism and lack of empathy. No man, should ever under any circumstances throw his life away just because someone has a vagina.

Your vagina earns you nothing. Go. Fuck. Yourself.

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]mistixs -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SkyNightZ 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]queenxmisha 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrway_1000 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mistixs0 points 10 years ago* [recovered] (139 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (134 children) | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (133 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (132 children) | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (131 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheSummerain 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Men choose to freely practice their rights, and vote. In return they may be drafted.

Then so should women.

Women choose to freely practice their rights, and have sex. In return, they may have to give birth

No they choose to give birth. The government does not forcibly impregnated women and force them to give birth and raise a child.

A woman as a option to end a pregnancy at her will. A man does. It have that same option to get out of the draft.

Being drafted may possibly kill a man.

And to permanently disable him too. Mental scars from combat, PTSD, etc.

Giving birth may possibly kill a woman. Even a healthy woman can have unforseen complications.

So you are comparing birthing a child in a western country where it is incredibly safe and rare for complications to happen, and when they do they have the best technology and skills available to deal with it. You are comparing that to actual combat where people are actively trying to kill you.

False comparison

What I'm saying is, that in both scenarios, they should have the option to get out of that possibly lethal responsibility. Men through not serving/leaving service, women through abortions.

But men don't have the option to not serve, women to have options to not get pregnant.

[–]orangorilla 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla9 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla4 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla4 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla6 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pennycenturie1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]queenxmisha 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]mistixs -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]mistixs0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

From the Center of Military Readiness:

”[Including women in the draft] would waste scarce time and resources trying to evaluate and train thousands of women — just to find the small percentage who might be minimally qualified for the combat arms where the critical need is greatest.

The ensuing political crisis and paralyzing administrative overload would weaken our armed forces, not strengthen them, at the worst possible time — when America is under attack.”

Also: "All-male task forces outperformed mixed-gender units 69 percent of the time. Injury rates among women were two to six times greater — even higher in load-bearing infantry task force teams."

Higher injury rates means the military has to spend more money. & With each injury, combat unit efficiency is decreased.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/7/john-mccains-mandate-for-drafting-women/

You ask what benefit men get for being the only ones to be drafted. They get:

-Higher survivability rates if they ARE drafted (combat units with both men&women had more deaths for both women AND men).

-Higher likelihood of winning the war & not having their efforts (and potentially lives) wasted.

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

""All-male task forces outperformed mixed-gender units 69 percent of the time"

So use sex separated task forces.

"Injury rates among women were two to six times greater — even higher in load-bearing infantry task force teams.""

So it's fine if ALL the deaths form the draft are men, but if women are getting hurt ohhh no!

You ask what benefit men get for being the only ones to be drafted.

The get Forced to fight for a country that routinely disrespects them
They get shot, maimed, killed, all because they are purely men.

Women should risk their lives as well.

I will not die for women, equal rights equal fights.

I do not care if women are weaker, that is not my responsibility, my life is mine and I will not have it thrown away just because I'm male.

Women do not own my life, and I will not allow the government to dispose of my life in order to protect women in a country where Men get nothing in exchange.

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You think men should die in the draft and receive NOTHING in exchange.

You think women should die in childbirth and receive nothing in exchange.

And don't say it's a choice because it's not. Some women are raped, and you think they should be forced by the government to carry the pregnancy to term.

Women have already risked their lives for this country. Childbirth deaths historically outnumber war deaths. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/03/saving-women-during-childbirth/

As for the parental rights thing... Equal rights either necessitate equal fights, in all cases, or they don't. All or nothing. You can't pick and choose.

Perhaps men could pay the mothers of their children for all the effort in pregnancy and birth. Don't say "being pregnant was her choice"; having a job is a choice but people get paid for it.

We'll have literally twice as many people to deploy

Source please. A gender neutral draft means the same number of people will be drafted, but 50% will be women.

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You think women should die in childbirth and receive nothing in exchange.

They choose to participate, they knew the risks.

And don't say it's a choice because it's not.

Yes, yes it is.

Some women are raped, and you think they should be forced by the government to carry the pregnancy to term.

It has nothing to do with women, everything to do with children. If a man is raped, should he have the right to kill the child? After all he did not consent to have the child.

As for the parental rights thing... Equal rights either necessitate equal fights, in all cases, or they don't. All or nothing. You can't pick and choose.

Child birth is not a fight forced on a woman. Woman can CHOOSE to join the military, but they are not FORCED too.

Unless you can show me the fines, prison, and threat of treason facing women who get abortions then the situation is completely false.

Source please. A gender neutral draft means the same number of people will be drafted, but 50% will be women.

It's logic, only 50% at a time will be women but you've doubled the total number possible.

If you have one bucket of water and someone walks up and gives you another, you now have two buckets of water to douse the fire.

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not HIS life being put at risk.

So if the woman chooses to say have a natural birth, it's okay that she's putting her life at risk further?

Yes, in cases of rape, childbirth is a fight forced on women, at least the ones who are raped.

So if a man is being forced to pay for a child that isn't his, and he didn't consent to his DNA being shared why shouldn't he be able to terminate that life? Why does a CRIMINAL have right to their body but a child doesn't?

Men should pay women money, in return for the services of pregnancy and childbirth, in order to get equal custody over their children.

You mean....CHILD SUPPORT?

No it's not. Give me a source for that.

It's called equal implementation, I wouldn't expect them to throw 100% women or 75% women into the fray either. If they did such I'd be outraged.

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

He have to pay child support if he was a victim of rape.

Wow you're a fucking backwards thinker. Don't be surprised you're not the only one who thinks men don't matter:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

No. Child support is money given to support the children.

The children the woman CHOSE to create, nobody FORCES them to use it on their children either.

We're referring to giving money to the woman for their services of gestation.

Nobody forces her to have children, rapists are punished and jailed.

Killing Children isn't okay just because we're trying to outlaw Killing Men (and fining, jailing, depriving them of aid, etc. if they refuse).

Here's an idea, since you're so convinced men MUST DIE FOR WOMEN because biologically men tend to be stronger, then WOMEN MUST BE DRAFTED TO REPRODUCE because biologically they can make children to defend the nation.

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The military isn't large.

Larger than it needs to be.

Only 1% of American men, IIRC, are in combat roles.

Sufficient for the time, not mandatory currently because it's not wartime.

81% of women give birth.

And if war breaks out, and 81% suddenly drops to 16% how do we grab those women and force them to make children for the state?

Women shouldn't have to be forced to sign up for a childbirth draft just because not enough men are pulling their weight and doing their duty.

So because the military is currently sufficient (by large margins) we shouldn't have to sign up for the draft either, and if wartime breaks out anyone should be able to leave the military at any time, right?

Enough women are already doing their duty.

That duty isn't required right now. Men are doing far more militarily than is required right now.

What if we require 100% of capable women to reproduce, how do we force them if they don't sign up?

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Xemnas811 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why do YOU want WOMEN to die so badly?

I want them to fulfill the same roles and responsibilities that men are obligated to by the federal government under the law. They may very well not die, many men die, and that is sad. I simply expect equality. I wouldn't throw a temper tantrum if women did very well and returned alive.

Increasing female deaths won't decrease male deaths. It'll just make it so that those male deaths are more likely to have been in vain.

Your logic is "If we have two buckets of water, used separately, on the same fire, we will be less likely to put out the fire than with one."

Imagine this:

The government builds a meat grinder, and they need to grind up some people. They look at the numbers and see that statistically black people are harder to grind up. Due to this new finding they exempt all white people from grinding. As a white person, sure SOME black people might be easier to grind up than me but because as a whole my race is statistically less likely (We also engage in practices that we know will reduce our chances of making us grind-able, we have no reason to try on the "Grinding" tests after all) I will not be ground up. In exchange black people get nothing, and white people get all the same rights while black people day en masse.

Would you find that fair? After all Black People grind less easily right?

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Most women don't meet combat standards, so if you want to draft women to make up 50% of combat draftees, then you want women to be placed into combat even if they don't meet the standards.

According to the Center of Military Readiness: "86% of [women], compared to 3% of the men, could not meet gender-neutral tests of upper body strength, stamina, and running speed."

https://www.cmrlink.org/content/home/37759/congress_should_challenge_myths_about_women_combat_and_the_draft

Surely you wouldn't agree with drafting that 3% of men into combat despite not meeting requirements, would you?

Then how is it "equality" to want to draft women into combat, in equal numbers as men, which would mean that MOST WOMEN drafted into combat don't fit requirements, and are therefore much more likely to be injured and/or die than the men?

You don't want men to be drafted into combat if they don't meet requirements, surely... but you want women to be drafted into combat even if they don't meet requirements. That's the definition of unequal treatment.

If you supported women being drafted IF THEY MET REQUIREMENTS - which would mean that women would make up probably 14% of combat roles at most - THAT would be equal treatment.

It's ironic, because you probably don't agree with affirmative action, do you? I don't think you agree with forcible equal 50/50 split in other roles/jobs in society, regardless of competence, do you?

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Everyone? Does that include old people?

If you insist each demographic be drafted in proportion to their percent of the population, then should old people have to be drafted in proportion to their percentage of their population, even if they don't meet standards?

Old people want equal rights & to fight against ageism[1], right? Should old people not have the right to vote if they're not registered for the draft & have as much likelihood of being drafted as younger people? (Don't say that old men have already registered; some men arrive in the US from elsewhere, when they're older than drafting age.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism

It's not "equal fights" if the women are in much more danger than the men due to the majority of women not meeting combat standards. "Equality" would be putting everyone into circumstances they're most suitable for, and for the majority of women, that wouldn't be combat.

The fact is that if you want to win a war with as few casualties as possible, then you send your most suited fighters, the majority of which are young men.

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Everyone? Does that include old people?

Are you saying women are as decrepit as the elderly?

If you insist each demographic be drafted in proportion to their percent of the population, then should old people have to be drafted in proportion to their percentage of their population, even if they don't meet standards?

Old people cannot run, walk, or carry a gun. Women can do all these things. In a draft any able bodied person should fight the elderly, sick, and disabled clearly don't qualify.

Old people want equal rights & to fight against ageism

Old people ALREADY WERE eligible for the draft. Look at this way:

Ever single citizen has the same window of draft eligibility, i.e. EQUAL DRAFT ELIGIBILITY.

It's not "equal fights" if the women are in much more danger than the men due to the majority of women not meeting combat standards.

That's not an issue for the meat grinder that is the draft. Equal Rights, Equal Fights.

The fact is that

You want men to die, you think men DESERVE to die for women and that they should be willing to throw their lives away for women. Again, see your incredibly sexist link by the violent sociopath.

You think women should dictate if children die and if men die. Last I checked that was a form of Supremacy.

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Most old people can walk, run, and carry guns.

Look at all these images: https://www.google.com/search?q=old+people+walking&safe=strict&biw=1024&bih=677&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMmOX3ufzNAhUKOD4KHYlABBAQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=4LmleR0zoJ35bM%3A

And these elderly men would be very insulted by your insinuation that they can't. https://books.google.com/books?id=TaeLtr0_NsQC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=ageism+military+draft&source=bl&ots=qHdD3smnVf&sig=7dPWaYa1TQLCo8btFij32Qq8edM&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjfktvZufzNAhUKOD4KHYlABBAQ6AEIPDAG#v=onepage&q=ageism%20military%20draft&f=false

The ageism of the draft law...frustrated some older men. 'In my opinion...there are plenty of people about the 40 to 50 age limit right here in Chicago simply aching to get into action."[...] J. Wohlfarth...wrote to the New York Times in 1917 to complain about the "absurdity"...since he was "physically able" despite his more than 55 years of age... After all, "Some men are old at 40...some are young at 60 or even 70."

Older men have fought against ageism for decades.

They'd be very insulted to hear you bashing their abilities. Many old people are just as capable as younger people.

They WANT EQUAL RIGHTS. So, using your logic, why shouldn't they have EQUAL "FIGHTS" despite, on average, having lower competence?

Old people ALREADY WERE eligible for the draft. Look at this way: ever single citizen has the same window of draft eligibility, i.e. EQUAL DRAFT ELIGIBILITY.

No, because some people arrive in the US, from elsewhere, after drafting age. So not all of them were eligible for the draft.

[Lower likelihood of meeting combat standards is] not an issue for the meat grinder that is the draft.

Then why not draft the elderly?

In a draft any able bodied person should fight the elderly, sick, and disabled clearly don't qualify.

Most women don't qualify either. Only 14% of women met combat standards, in comparison to 97% of men. Sure, some women meet combat standards, but there are also many elderly people who meet combat standards too.

Are you saying women are as decrepit as the elderly?

Women and men are simply built differently & have different physical abilities (it's called "sexual dimorphism"), with most women not suited for combat roles, just like many elderly people aren't. It doesn't make women inferior anymore than men are inferior to chimps because chimps have more brute strength than men, or men are inferior to women because men can't breastfeed.

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Most old people can walk, run, and carry guns.

Every American has the same age requirements, seriously you couldn't be more desperate. What next draft newborns?

Older men have fought against ageism for decades.

Many of those older men have fought in WWII & Vietnam. Every american has the SAME AGE RESTRICTIONS ON THE DRAFT.

Then why not draft the elderly?

They have paid their dues. Every american has an EQUAL window of draft eligibility.

Most women don't qualify either.

"If you become stronger, you have to die!" i.e. Women will dodge the draft by refusing to train.

Women and men are simply built differently & have different physical abilities (it's called "sexual dimorphism"), with most women not suited for combat roles

What should Men get in exchange? Or what should women lose in exchange?

Women pay nothing for their rights, you have two choices:

A) Women pay something for their rights (an increase in taxes, a loss of a right (i.e. the vote), or forced conscription (i.e. Legally required to reproduce for the country). B) Women have to be drafted and fight in war.

Until women MUST UNDER THE LAW PAY SOMETHING IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR RIGHTS (facing charges of treason, imprisonment, $200,000 fines, i.e. All those men face) then women must lose a right in exchange.

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What next draft newborns?

No because your logic is "equal rights, equal fights," and newborns obviously don't have equal rights. That's why I'm not using children as an example.

They have paid their dues.

Not necessarily.

Like I said 2x.

SOME PEOPLE ARRIVE IN THE US WHEN THEY'RE OLDER THAN DRAFT AGE, and therefore never had to sign up for the draft.

What should Men get in exchange? Or what should women lose in exchange?

What should young people gain in exchange for being eligible for the draft?

What should elderly people, particularly those who arrived in the US when they were older than draft age, have to lose in exchange for not being eligible for the draft?

Should they not be able to vote? Especially when we consider the fact that not only will they NOT have to be drafted, but they'll probably die soon & NOT have to suffer as many potential ramifications of a potential war, as younger people will? (Even the young people not drafted into war still suffer ramifications from war.)

Why are you targeting women? Women aren't the only ones who want to fight against discrimination against their group.

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What should elderly people, particularly those who arrived in the US when they were older than draft age, have to lose in exchange for not being eligible for the draft?

Those who come late do not get the same benefits throughout life, there is a lot to be said regarding whether or not immigrants should be able to move in and instantly start robbing our welfare systems, but that is a different discussion.

Should they not be able to vote?

They lose all the potential to have benefited from this countries various welfare systems throughout their entire lives. Voter eligibility is again a separate and valid issue (Should old muslim men simply be allowed to move in and start leading us down the path to Sharia law?)

Separate issue from the fact that women are not equally paying for their rights, if I recall women are 50% of the population making them a MUCH larger issue than the elderly.

[–]mistixs2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The elderly who...successfully made it through their eligibility window are not hit again

I don't really see the reason why people who have made it through their eligibility window, without being drafted, should go without the tax? I see the tax as simply a sign of gratitude for not being eligible for the draft, and helping out the people who are drafted, & since the military very well could've made the window longer so that 50 year olds were eligible for the draft, there's still some gratitude to be paid for no longer having the possibility of being drafted.

B) The elderly who already served...are not hit again

Definitely!

I see no reason to tax the disabled as they quite literally have no choice in the matter (Couldn't fight if they wanted to).

Well I mean it's simply in good taste, isn't it? It's simply a nice thing for us (I say this as someone who has medical conditions myself which would mean that I couldn't serve if I wanted to[1]) to do for the people who are drafted. Let's be honest, the majority of us with health conditions probably wouldn't have wanted to serve anyway.

Of course we could go easier on the disabled people who aren't capable of paying the taxes, for whatever reason, than the women who aren't capable.

[1] Which means that no, contrary to what you said earlier, I don't "want everyone to die before [me], the men, the children, the elderly," because the draft wouldn't be applicable to me anyway.

I was not saying that elderly people should be drafted. I agree that they shouldn't. I'm just using them as an example to show the absurdity of the notion that women should be drafted to make up 50% of combat roles even though, similar to most elderly not meeting standards, most women can't meet standards.

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't really see the reason why people who have made it through their eligibility window, without being drafted, should go without the tax? I see the tax as simply a sign of gratitude for not being eligible for the draft, and helping out the people who are drafted, & since the military very well could've made the window longer so that 50 year olds were eligible for the draft, there's still some gratitude to be paid for no longer having the possibility of being drafted.

That draft is fair and equal, ever single person will have that same draft window. The elderly (particularly those in retirement) are not as capable of working as they once were.

Well I mean it's simply in good taste, isn't it? It's simply a nice thing for us (I say this as someone who has medical conditions myself which would mean that I couldn't serve if I wanted to[1]) to do for the people who are drafted.

The disabled are almost guaranteed to be on federal welfare: http://www.upi.com/Census-30-percent-on-welfare-disabled/17991361916506/

It would be akin to saying "You already can't live, well now you can definitely not live!".

Let's be honest, the majority of us with health conditions probably wouldn't have wanted to serve anyway.

The majority doesn't affect them all, should the disabled BE ALLOWED to serve? If they're not allowed to serve then they should not be required to pay. I personally don't think making aircraft carriers wheelchair accessible is a cheap and efficient maneuver, nor do I think giving a blind man a fully automatic rifle a good idea.

most women can't meet standards.

The standards were set intentionally high and the standards you speak of are primarily for non-drafted combat. The draft is a last ditch effort and women shouldn't get a pass just because they have cunts. The tax would be ideal for those who are injured, how would the money be put to use for those killed? Maybe that money should be relegated to male only scholarships/programs/resources that would help make up for the loss of male life in the event of war?

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why do you think that it will eventually not be worthwhile? Even one life saved is worth it.

I agree that if men are obligated to serve if the nation calls for it, that if women are exempt from that task, women can rightfully be obligated to pay whatever possible to help keep the draftees safe and alive, and every boys life counts.

Increasing productivity back at home doesn't seem like the ideal goal, I don't think. I remember you saying that men should receive something that will indicate "your life is worth something too." I agree with that.

I think that happiness, well being, and health are the most important things in life, so men should receive help that will help them live healthy and happier, which may not necessarily mean encouraging economic prosperity. Having more money doesn't necessarily make you happier (beyond having enough money, of course, for necessities). That may make society more productive but I don't think that should be the goal, ya know? I think the goal should be compensating men themselves, rather than society.

So perhaps some of the money could go to better mental health services and programs for men and boys? Especially since the possibility of being drafted may cause anxiety and feelings of sadness, and also, I do think that boys and men are overlooked in the mental health sphere.

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I do think that men should not be forced either, and that both men and women should be able to choose whether or not to put their names in the drafting pool, or pay the extra tax. (In this case, the money would go to mental health programs for "potential draftees".)

However, if it's this versus both women and men being drafted, I do think that this is the most efficient and humane. By "efficient" I mean that, since most women can't meet standards, for every woman that is selected, you're almost certainly missing out on a more suitable man. If we want to win a war, we send the most suited fighters. Thus drafting women would weaken the military, at the cost of several million dollars (the price to double the number of people having to register selective service).

& by "humane" I mean that it would result in less human deaths. If women are drafted into combat, they're at a much higher likelihood of dying than men, so there would almost certainly be more human deaths if women were drafted.

Meanwhile not drafting women would reduce the number of human deaths, and women paying taxes to support the healthcare of draftees would help reduce the number of (male) deaths even more. Also, not drafting women would make it so that the military didn't have to spend millions more dollars registering twice as many (mainly incompetent) people, & that money and time and energy could be spent improving the safety and health of draftees.

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mistixs1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

Men choose to freely practice their rights, and vote. In return they may be drafted.

Vote == Draft.

1 right. 1 responsibility.

Draft is imposed by the government, prison, fines, and threats of execution face those unwilling to obey.

Women choose to freely practice their rights, and have sex. In return, they may have to give birth

And what do women pay for their right to vote?

Oh right, nothing.

2 Rights -> 1 Cost

Women will not be forced to have children they can take birth control (of over a DOZEN varieties), have abortion within the law, and take a morning after pill. The government will not force them to not take birth control with prison or fines.

What I'm saying is, that in both scenarios, they should have the option to get out of that possibly lethal responsibility. Men through not serving/leaving service, women through abortions.

In one scenario the woman get's a free right (The vote) and has NOTHING forced upon her by the government and her actions result directly in her consequences, in the other a man (Who may very well have never voted) is forced to fight and die in war which he probably didn't vote for.

Free rights for women, so fair, so equal.

[–]orangorilla -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Now, men and women can vote

Fair.

Men and women have parental rights as well.

Fair.

That means they have a COST, should they ever become pregnant, that they have to risk their lives to deliver

Ah, men commit suicide, and because they do so therefore they deserve another right. http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod/2013/index.htm

This is the problem with your argument it depends on someone CHOOSING to do something. The women can CHOOSE not to have sex, or CHOOSE to take birth control, or CHOOSE to take the morning after pill.

If you physically depend on someone else for your survival, cutting the cord is a morally neutral act.

Oh. So this woman was morally right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-nuGnmAfBE

She did kill someone depending on her for survival (a child, called a "Dependent" by the state) so it's morally neutral right?

[–]orangorilla0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And the woman can also CHOOSE to take an abortion. Just because it passes the magic stage of suddenly being a life for your sake it doesn't make it less right with an abortion than a morning after pill. Hell, with that pill, it already assumes life has begun. It is an abortion.

It is ASSUMED not proven.

Cutting the cord != killing

Depriving a baby of food == Killing. Depriving a baby of oxygen == Killing.

If a mother can say "Yeah I started taking care of a child, but now I'm kind of ehhhh about it. I don't want to carry it to term, Let's make it dead."

then why can't parents say

"Yeah. I started taking care of a child, but now I'm kind of ehhhh about it. I don't want to take care of it until it's 18, Let's make it dead."

What about a father who is a victim of Rape, should he be able to demand the abortion take place? After all the mother is a criminal who is forcing him against his will to create a child he doesn't want.

[–]orangorilla0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is ASSUMED not proven.

So as long as it's schrödingers baby, it's okay to flush it out?

If a mother can say "Yeah I started taking care of a child, but now I'm kind of ehhhh about it. I don't want to carry it to term, Let's make it dead."

That's why we've decided some reasonable period where the responsibility becomes binding. Some people discover pregnancies late, some take a few weeks to realize they aren't cut out for parenthood.

then why can't parents say

"Yeah. I started taking care of a child, but now I'm kind of ehhhh about it. I don't want to take care of it until it's 18, Let's make it dead."

Sure, let's view everything that way, with no lines. So if sex is okay with someone who's 20, why shouldn't it be okay with someone who is 10?

We as a society set down lines of when something is okay, one of those lines is the separation between "stirring out some womb goo" and "killing a baby" another is the line between "having sex" and "raping a child."

Your line is set very low in this case (72 hours) while society has a few weeks on you.

[–]TomwaIvory2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So as long as it's schrödingers baby, it's okay to flush it out?

If it takes you weeks of waiting to find out if a baby, may possible actually be there yes.

That's why we've decided some reasonable period where the responsibility becomes binding. Some people discover pregnancies late, some take a few weeks to realize they aren't cut out for parenthood.

And clearly I believe in that to an extent (Morning after pill and all) but at what point is that "window" closed? Feminists seem to think there should be no window at all.

So if sex is okay with someone who's 20, why shouldn't it be okay with someone who is 10?

A 10 year old cannot consent to sex, a 20 year old can.

A child cannot ever consent to being murdered and neither child can take care of themselves.

We as a society set down lines of when something is okay, one of those lines is the separation between "stirring out some womb goo" and "killing a baby" another is the line between "having sex" and "raping a child."

And for a long time we decided we could own people, turns out that wasn't okay. For a long time we decided we could eloctrocute people to death, even young boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNarYKEaHgY

And if feminists have their way we'll throw all men into prison based on accusations, so if the MAJORITY want to kill and harm people it's okay?

Your line is set very low in this case (72 hours) while society has a few weeks on you.

Many people had years of hating slavery before it was abolished. I don't jump on a bandwagon just because everyone agrees. Most of the people in the Middle East believe in incredibly violent things, does that make it okay?

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Unless within that arbitrary line where we say she hasn't officially taken on parental responsibilities yet.

Oh right, you're not a parent until you fill out the paper work. She chose to have sex, people are responsible for the actions they undertake.

you aren't by chance a christian?

God doesn't exist and I won't believe that until I have proof to the contrary. Christianity is no more valid than Islam or Satanism or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You drink and drive? There are risks. You face responsibility for those risks whether you want to or not.

You have sex? There are risks. You face responsibility for those risk whether you want to or not.

You can mitigate your risks (A breathalyzer you carry with you for drinking and driving, birth control\Morning after pill for sex) but you don't get to just say "Oh I don't want to accept personal responsibility! Fuck the actual victim in this situation!"

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think that if you don't take steps to disengage yourself within reasonable time, you should have the responsibility, yes.

What is a reasonable time to you?

I don't consider fetus murder to be murder, I think that's our third hurdle.

A human comes in different stages.

A child is simply a collection of cells growing into an adult, it grows taller undergoes puberty, becomes sexually capable, becomes more intelligent. A fetus is simply a collection of cells growing into a child, it grows organs (hearts, lungs, eyes, etc.) because it has every intention of fully growing, at only 8 weeks it begins to move, and by 12 it has pretty much completed all of it's basic functions. As it grows it begins to react to noises outside the womb and learns about external stimuli: http://www.today.com/parents/unborn-babies-are-hearing-you-loud-clear-8C11005474

I don't value a 3 year old more than an infant just because the 3 year old can do more.

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]orangorilla1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheSummerain 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]mistixs 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Article I was linked to regarding the Draft
Author	TomwaIvory
Upvotes	9
Comments	190
Date	June 8, 2016 7:40 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4n3w5g/article_i_was_linked_to_regarding_the_draft/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/article-i-was-linked-to-regarding-the-draft.947908 https://theredarchive.com/post/947908

Comments