This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
DotD - July 19 - [General Topic] Sexism, Misogyny, Tattoos, and Promiscuity
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Gone
As much as it could be a noble thing to join a military in defense of someone's homeland I think the more honorable and noble thing in today's age would be to have a generation of young people who refused to join the military on principle of ending the military machine which uses politicians for its own gain. If we had one generation which refused to serve it would be much more difficult for any industrialized nation to justify spending billions of dollars on military budgets(particularly the us). I don't think any of the wars the us has participated in or began since the Korean War have really been necessary and even that one was used as a stepping stone into Vietnam.
First of all the government spends trillions of dollars on the military, not billions. Second the argument could be made that having such a powerful military could have prevented wars that otherwise may have broken out. I think military budgets could definitely stand to be cut. But an entire generation refusing to serve would would effectively send our military into a sinkhole. In theory it's an idea, but in practice it would prove idiotic.
Post by
193475
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
First, I'm well aware that the us spends trillions but that is not true of all industrialized nations.
And yet you specified your argument to the US.
Second, your statement that a generation which refused to serve(though in some nations a year of military service is mandatory) being idiotic is an opinion, not a fact. No it's pretty much a fact. Because first off, it wouldn't do what you claim it would. Without a strong standing army, the US would be forced to rely more and more on other means of combat. The government would opt more and more for drones and bombs and God knows what else.
Second of all, even if it would have the effect you imagine, it would be a bad idea. Right now the US holds military supremacy compared with the rest of the world. Whether that's good or bad, it's kept things in a sort of equilibrium. Wanting to change this is one thing, wanting to do so when there are so many tenuous situations with the middle east, North Korea, and China is in fact, idiotic. This is not the time to opt for a massive shift in the global balance of power.
Post by
Skreeran
Not to mention that an
entire
generation refusing to serve is just infeasible. I a large number of people refused to serve, they'd just increase wages or benefits to attract more recruits if they needed to fill slots.
You ever play Tropico? When I need more soldiers, I just increase their wages compared to other jobs of the same skill level, and people will fill any slots I open.
Post by
193475
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
193475
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
I didn't specify to the us with the statement you referenced. You just inferred that I was. I am also not just talking about Americans refusing to serve in the military. I am talking about an entire generation of young people, be they American, Swedish, Italian or w/e.
You said in regards to the same scenario that the last war we fought that was actually necessary was Korea, implying the US. Furthermore if you were indeed talking about multiple governments, as you now claim, then it makes even less, because the military budget for multiple nations would also be trillions of dollars. And the fact that you said "dollars" also kind of implies the US.
The fact that you're now talking about an entire international generation forgoing armed service only makes it stupider. You want to leave every world power defenseless in order to reduce military spending? What if somebody invades? Sure maybe they still wouldn't try to invade the US, but what of our oversea allies? This idea you have is ridicules.
Post by
193475
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
But that would never happen.
I'd like to get rid of every nuclear weapon in the world too, but that won't happen either.
Post by
193475
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
But that would never happen.
I'd like to get rid of every nuclear weapon in the world too, but that won't happen either.
There's a big difference between saying there should be no nuclear weapons and saying that the government should have no army.I didn't specify to the us with the statement you referenced. You just inferred that I was. I am also not just talking about Americans refusing to serve in the military. I am talking about an entire generation of young people, be they American, Swedish, Italian or w/e.
You said in regards to the same scenario that the last war we fought that was actually necessary was Korea, implying the US. Furthermore if you were indeed talking about multiple governments, as you now claim, then it makes even less, because the military budget for multiple nations would also be trillions of dollars. And the fact that you said "dollars" also kind of implies the US.
The fact that you're now talking about an entire international generation forgoing armed service only makes it stupider. You want to leave every world power defenseless in order to reduce military spending? What if somebody invades? Sure maybe they still wouldn't try to invade the US, but what of our oversea allies? This idea you have is ridicules.
I did change to using the us mainly and dollars in my example mainly because its easier and when I am talking about money and the fact that the us has been involved in so many wars relative to most other countries since ww2. You say its ridiculous to propose due to leaving countries defenseless yet how many countries have invaded Switzerland over the centuries despite them being a nation of peace while also being the center of European banking for quite some time? My example makes no sense if it is only Americans refusing to serve in the military. It would take young people all around the world refusing to in order to bring about an end to war on this planet.
You are an idealistic &*!@ing loon if you believe that the US and it's allies having no army would make the world a better place. I can't argue with you anymore.
Post by
193475
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
July 10 - Should joining the military of a modern, dominant world power (US as an immediate example) automatically be considered a heroic choice and worthy of praise?
Depends on why the person is joining up. If it's a voluntary process, and the person in question is trying to make a difference in the world, then yes, thank them for being willing to lay their lives on the line so that the people back home can live in peace.
If they are doing it for a free education, then praise them for being willing to go out and work at something incredibly hard like that.
If they are doing it for some really stupid ass reason...mock them.
Honestly, whether you agree with the government in question or not, a lot of the military types do deserve respect and praise for choosing a job that is up there with EMT's, police officers, fire fighters and emergency room doctors.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
July 11 - Is it sexist or demeaning for a group of one sex to talk or joke about the relative attractiveness of members of the opposite gender among themselves (or by extension, groups of gay people talking about the same sex)?
As a man who often hangs out in groups of other men, we talk about women all the time, and we have no qualms about nudging each other when a good looking girl walks in the room, nor do we have any problems telling each other about "the 10" we saw the other day. I assume at least some groups of women have their own particular ways of talking about men too, but I'm not an expert in the subject. Is this behavior acceptable?
Post by
Adamsm
July 11 - Is it sexist or demeaning for a group of one sex to talk or joke about the relative attractiveness of members of the opposite gender among themselves (or by extension, groups of gay people talking about the same sex)?
As a man who often hangs out in groups of other men, we talk about women all the time, and we have no qualms about nudging each other when a good looking girl walks in the room, nor do we have any problems telling each other about "the 10" we saw the other day. I assume at least some groups of women have their own particular ways of talking about men too, but I'm not an expert in the subject.
It probably is...but everyone does it anyways; should hear the men and women around me at work talking about this hot guy/girl they saw and oh what they would like to do to them. I think it's just the inexplicable gossip gene we all have in us that wants to do things like that.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think it's demeaning if the way in which you talk about it is demeaning, and not if it's not. Recognizing someone is attractive to you, appreciating it, talking about their attractive traits- totally fine. It's sexist or demeaning when you use that attraction as an excuse to say vulgar things regarding them, you make ego-laden jokes with connotations of conquest, ownership or treat them as less of a person than you'd treat anyone else.
I have routinely discussed what is attractive, who is attractive, why they're attractive, etc. with my female friends. Generally, it's in terms of "He's so hot. He's so tall. He has great shoulders. I love big (read:tall, broad framed, etc.) guys. That scar is kind of sexy. I love listening to that accent." I don't think that's degrading- I don't think that me thinking something about him being attractive is an insult, or is me shutting out anything else about him to focus on his physical appearance exclusively.
What I see from other people, which would be demeaning, is that they will take the fact that they find the person attractive to make it ok to describe vulgar activities they'd like to do with them, or get very explicit about the reproductive parts of their anatomies. I hear them discussing conquest or ownership of them on some level, or to focus on sex with that person as some kind of end goal that is completely divorced from them as a person and is all about the gratification of the person speaking. I hear people discuss members of their preferred sex as a means to a specific, selfish end rather than thinking about that other person as a person with whom they'd like to be mutually involved. I find that to be degrading, and in that instance the discussion is sexist, because it disregards them as anything other than a sex object.
This reminds me that the other day on Cracked I went through a slide show of impressive facts about unimpressive celebrities, or something, and they had a panel on Dolph Lundgren having an IQ of 160, and having a masters in Chemical Engineering and I was kind of excited about it. He was this huge crush I had when I was 12-14, and no other girl my age knew who he was because none of them were watching all of the violent action movies he was in. But when I saw that panel, I was like "Even then, I had good taste." If I find out that someone I think is attractive is a huge jerk, it will similarly completely cancel out in my mind any interest in whether they are attractive or not. Because when I thing of someone as attractive, I'm still taking into account them as a person, and so finding out they're really smart, or a good person, or they kick kittens, all is part of how I look at them.
I think a person who views people they're attracted to in a sexist way are interested primarily and almost exclusively in that aspect of them, and that's where you have these comments that are explicit, and disregard them as an equal participant in any interactions you have with them.
EDIT: Realized I had better clarify one of my sentences...(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
EDIT: Realized I had better clarify one of my sentences...
Wouldn't want any of us guys feeling inadequate
<.<
>.>
Post by
ElhonnaDS
EDIT: Realized I had better clarify one of my sentences...
Wouldn't want any of us guys feeling inadequate
<.<
>.>
Stop objectifying yourself.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.