Posted on 12/05/2014 4:05:24 PM PST by Timber Rattler
>>DO NOT EXPECT TO FATHER CHILDREN. Got that asshole?
You see why women are not suited for submarine duty? You got this worked up over stuff that was typed on a computer. You may have all the technical skills in the world, but you are not mentally suited for the life aboard a cramped little steel tube. I only said the things I said in this thread to demonstrate why women are not suitable because of your tendency to hysterics like the above quote.
BTW, father of three here.Still married to my first and only wife after 32 years, 8 of those in submarines.
~I understand your wrath to some degree but you are somehow fundamentally wrong anyway and you certainly think communist right now.
Communist, because I think men should control themselves around women?~
Communism was based on a little idea which is about that people have to control their ‘greed’. The fact that they actually can’t because it is innatural was actually the reason why the whole ideology failed miserably.
I guess they soon understood it and came up with an idea of a ‘new Soviet man’ who was engaged in different stupid unnecessary unnatural social practices and had to control himself at the time to be more ‘progressive’. It might have been steps to overcome other natural things like ‘greed’.
To put woman in a submarine is actually 100% in line with that practice but classic communists actually never came as far.
~Would you advocate unisex prisons too?
No. Prisons are for people to pay their debt to society for crimes they committed, not so they can socialize with members of the opposite sex.~
So, in your opinion military service is mostly about socializing? Well, I understand why are you pushing idea and I don’t think it worth arguing anymore.
I believe the females and males are separated not because they might "socialize" as you say, but for reasons that are very obvious to sane people.
In places where the government can't impose Orwellian fantasies, like in outlaw biker gangs, females can't hold their own.
That was an unfortunate choice of examples. I am personally aware of an incident in which a biker chick took down a Marine with a swift kick you know where. So much for females not being able to hold their own.
Which branch were you in, and what era was it, or which president was it under?
So let me see if I understand this. I support women serving in the military, but I opposed (then and now) lowering the standards for them. You have decided that, because I support women serving in the military, I also support lowering the standards for them, a point you have attributed to me on several occasions.
Now, you expect me to give out personal information in order to prove that I have the experience to defend a point that I not only haven't made, but oppose.
Even if I was willing to post personal information on the Internet, impressing you of anything isn't important enough. Conclude what you want.
But, if you're going to attack me and take personal shots at me, then please have the honesty to do so over comments I have actually made.
Communism was about controlling the wealth you generated by your own work and innovation, which it called greed, and distributing that wealth to others. What happened here (assuming it happened as described) was a sex crime. No comparison.
So, in your opinion military service is mostly about socializing?
No, but service members have met their significant others while serving. Do you have a problem with that?
Well, I understand why are you pushing idea and I don’t think it worth arguing anymore.
I guess the realization that you have been defending a sex crime as just a prank can have that effect.
It is a very astute choice and one that you can’t refute, but it is revealing that you think a guy getting caught in the nuts is meaningful as a response, especially if there were male bikers around.
In what biker gang do the women go toe to toe with the men?
Also, I didn’t ask you for anything personal, just what branch and what president or era, why would you conceal that?
~Communism was about controlling the wealth you generated by your own work and innovation, which it called greed, and distributing that wealth to others.~
In short, unnatural human condition. Just like woman in male prison, in men’s bathroom, checkroom or shower. Or submarine.
It has nothing to do with ‘blaming the victim’ as you try to put out.
~So, in your opinion military service is mostly about socializing?
No, but service members have met their significant others while serving. Do you have a problem with that?~
In short, you want to get into a male-rich environment to get a boyfriend and ‘bless’ him with privilege the rest of the crew is deprived of for months to come? It is a sociopathy I have said about actually.
~I guess the realization that you have been defending a sex crime as just a prank can have that effect.~
Don’t put faux arguments in my mouth. I understand that you want to dominate discussion at all costs, but I wasn’t defending a thing. It is actually you who are defending unnatural condition making a ‘sex crime’ happen.
What else needs to be said to refute it?
but it is revealing that you think a guy getting caught in the nuts is meaningful as a response, especially if there were male bikers around.
I would agree if that was an isolated incident.
In what biker gang do the women go toe to toe with the men?
If your point is that women can't "go toe to toe" with men due to some inferiority you assign to them, then I'll let the readers decide.
Also, I didn’t ask you for anything personal, just what branch and what president or era, why would you conceal that?
For the same reason I conceal everything else, and I've already told you to draw your own conclusion.
And since I'm sure of what that conclusion will be, I'll defer to your experience and ask you, of all of the men who have served in close quarters with women, how many have committed sex crimes such as this against them?
No, there is no comparison between honestly producing something to generate wealth and a sex crime.
It has nothing to do with ‘blaming the victim’ as you try to put out.
How?
In short, you want to get into a male-rich environment to get a boyfriend and ‘bless’ him with privilege the rest of the crew is deprived of for months to come? It is a sociopathy I have said about actually.
Don’t put faux arguments in my mouth either. I never said gays should be allowed to serve. As I posted to another in post 83, "If you're saying we shouldn't allow homosexuals to serve, I agree. They base their identity on the acts they like to perform with each other, so of course they're going to force it on others."
Don’t put faux arguments in my mouth.
I crossed you with another poster. Apologies.
It is actually you who are defending unnatural condition making a ‘sex crime’ happen.
If that was true, then most men in this position would be guilty of sex crimes such as this. So, applying your experience, what is the percentage of men who serve closely with women under these circumstance and commit sex crimes against them?
Wow, you didn’t say anything.
You don’t really know anything about this subject at all, it seems.
You don’t have any knowledge of the topic, nor any useful input.
I wonder why you didn’t enlist yourself?
I misread your point. That was a good point, actually. I'm not sure I have an answer for that apart from segregation.
Unfortunately, that won't happen, so the males who are "left out" are going to have to find some way to work with it. Maybe the rest of us should be discussing solutions, instead of harping on something that isn't going to change any time soon.
~I misread your point. That was a good point, actually. I’m not sure I have an answer for that apart from segregation.~
I’m very glad to see we actually came to a reasonable conclusion.
It made no sense to make your post any longer.
>>>>That was a good point, actually. I'm not sure I have an answer for that apart from segregation.
Ok now shut up about this subject, you FINALLY get it.
No.
you FINALLY get it.
What I get is that this was a good point. OK, a very good point. Now let's stop talking about what the government should do, because the current government is going to continue with these policies regardless of what we post, and discuss what WE can offer to help men in this position.
What I won't offer is this as an excuse to the males who videotaped those women, especially when many other men have served under those conditions without violating women.
Now, if it isn't your point that they should be excused, then just say so and I'll shut up. Otherwise, I'll defer to your experience to offer explanation why only a few men out of many commit these kind of crimes, that doesn't include personal responsibility.
THERE ARE NO SHORTAGES OF YOUNG MEN TO FILL THE RANKS OF OUR EVER SHRINKING MILITARY. GET RID OF ALL WOMEN IN THE MILITARY. PROBLEM SOLVED, UNLESS THE SAILORS ARE FAGGOTS. WHICH IS A DIFFERENT PROBLEM AND THEY SHOULD BE OUTED ALSO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.