Totally, but that's beside the point. To have equality between the sexes, the same policies have to apply to both sexes to the same degree. Any deviation from equal treatment is, by definition, inequality. As such, women should also be drafted, or no one should.
Failing that, men should somehow be compensated for ongoing sex-based discrimination, especially when the discrimination prepares them to risk their lives.
We've bee fighting for equality for what? 250 years? Tell me something....do you like the country better now or 20 years ago?
Are you sure we're seeking equality? Do you feel more equal? Or are you having to check your white privilege at school? At university? During job searches? At your job? When you apply for home loans? When getting government assistance to open a business?
Obviously, brother, things are garbage tier for us non-leftists and a far cry from what they should be. We're not equal along any identity line, but we're facing people with a lot of social leverage and power who promote equity and intersectionality.
It's easy to play games with other people's blood.
Draft women, forever and always.
Totally, but that's beside the point
I don't believe it is. Imp doesn't want to see more men dying in war. A sentiment I share. His response is to demand women be drafted, resulting in (any realistic interpretation) mixed squads which have been shown to be less effective. Hence my issue. I don't want to see more men die in the pursuit of a notion as moronic as "equality".
To have equality between the sexes
Disparate individual abilities lead to disparate individual outcomes, where it is inferior individual outcomes stoking the resentment that makes "equality" such effective political fodder. There will be no true equality between the sexes, because generally speaking, the sexes are not equal.
Failing that, men should somehow be compensated for ongoing sex-based discrimination, especially when the discrimination prepares them to risk their lives.
I have mixed feelings about no draft. I entirely agree with the above though, and I guess traditionally there was compensation. The problem is we're upholding our end of the social contract and seeing nothing in return for it.
The sexes will never be objectively equal, for sure, but I'm referring to equality before the law. There's also no reason to encourage or support instances of legal inequality just because overall legal equality is difficult to achieve.
There's also no reason to encourage or support instances of legal inequality
Legal equality is concerned with equal legal treatment regardless of individual characteristics or outcome. Those characteristics can outright preclude a desirable outcome. It really comes down the quality of the laws and their interpretation. Like the definition of those characteristics, interpretations are also subject to change and manipulation - they reflect the current political will. See trannies, legal alteration of your birth certificate and the practical ramifications.
It works more often than not but a strong argument can be made against it in cases where outcome is critical - why the law itself routinely includes exceptions. Personally, I fail to see the victory in an academic application of equality that results in the loss of more of my countrymens' lives.
Which is perfectly fair, if nearly every goddamn inquiry or report on the matter doesn't indicate that men will be in greater danger, both physically and psychologically, in a mixed combat unit. Let go of you ideological compulsion for a second and realize what you're advocating for will likely cost male lives.
Now consider that the average politician and their "interest groups" have a considerably larger influence on men actually being deployed. Let those parasitic fucks light each other up first, then we can talk. The only war I'm interested in fighting anymore is one where I get to put holes in self-serving globalist sacks of shit.
But that's not a fair comparison if you want to talk about male lives being lost. If women were subject to draft, there may be so much reluctance to engage in war at all that no men die.
Drafting only men speaks to a societal disregard for male life. Women being drafted at least attempts to reinforce that the sexes are equal. But obviously, my preference is the other egalitarian option in no draft at all.
See, this I can agree with. Why don't women get the draft too? They're the ones voting for stuff like this, they are the ones yelling equality... But only when it comes to benefits for them. Meanwhile men get the raw deal in most things in life...
No, collectivism is the peak feminine take. Only women and weak, low status men favor collective action and you're on here pushing collectivism all the time. Maybe there is something to Tony saying that you're a transman.
It's easy to play games with other people's blood.
Draft women, forever and always.
There is no equality until there is equality on the battlefield.
Eh, as long as they're not in mixed units. Otherwise, you'll just be making men's lives worse.
Totally, but that's beside the point. To have equality between the sexes, the same policies have to apply to both sexes to the same degree. Any deviation from equal treatment is, by definition, inequality. As such, women should also be drafted, or no one should.
Failing that, men should somehow be compensated for ongoing sex-based discrimination, especially when the discrimination prepares them to risk their lives.
We've bee fighting for equality for what? 250 years? Tell me something....do you like the country better now or 20 years ago?
Are you sure we're seeking equality? Do you feel more equal? Or are you having to check your white privilege at school? At university? During job searches? At your job? When you apply for home loans? When getting government assistance to open a business?
Obviously, brother, things are garbage tier for us non-leftists and a far cry from what they should be. We're not equal along any identity line, but we're facing people with a lot of social leverage and power who promote equity and intersectionality.
I don't believe it is. Imp doesn't want to see more men dying in war. A sentiment I share. His response is to demand women be drafted, resulting in (any realistic interpretation) mixed squads which have been shown to be less effective. Hence my issue. I don't want to see more men die in the pursuit of a notion as moronic as "equality".
Disparate individual abilities lead to disparate individual outcomes, where it is inferior individual outcomes stoking the resentment that makes "equality" such effective political fodder. There will be no true equality between the sexes, because generally speaking, the sexes are not equal.
I have mixed feelings about no draft. I entirely agree with the above though, and I guess traditionally there was compensation. The problem is we're upholding our end of the social contract and seeing nothing in return for it.
The sexes will never be objectively equal, for sure, but I'm referring to equality before the law. There's also no reason to encourage or support instances of legal inequality just because overall legal equality is difficult to achieve.
Rights for men and women, but responsibilities only for men. That is not equality.
I agree completely, hence why I support drafting women or, even better, not drafting anyone.
Legal equality is concerned with equal legal treatment regardless of individual characteristics or outcome. Those characteristics can outright preclude a desirable outcome. It really comes down the quality of the laws and their interpretation. Like the definition of those characteristics, interpretations are also subject to change and manipulation - they reflect the current political will. See trannies, legal alteration of your birth certificate and the practical ramifications.
It works more often than not but a strong argument can be made against it in cases where outcome is critical - why the law itself routinely includes exceptions. Personally, I fail to see the victory in an academic application of equality that results in the loss of more of my countrymens' lives.
I just want to see women spend their lives fighting the wars they vote for.
Which is perfectly fair, if nearly every goddamn inquiry or report on the matter doesn't indicate that men will be in greater danger, both physically and psychologically, in a mixed combat unit. Let go of you ideological compulsion for a second and realize what you're advocating for will likely cost male lives.
Now consider that the average politician and their "interest groups" have a considerably larger influence on men actually being deployed. Let those parasitic fucks light each other up first, then we can talk. The only war I'm interested in fighting anymore is one where I get to put holes in self-serving globalist sacks of shit.
But that's not a fair comparison if you want to talk about male lives being lost. If women were subject to draft, there may be so much reluctance to engage in war at all that no men die.
Drafting only men speaks to a societal disregard for male life. Women being drafted at least attempts to reinforce that the sexes are equal. But obviously, my preference is the other egalitarian option in no draft at all.
Don't for a second dispute this.
I just disagree with this being the eventual, or even a realistic outcome.
See, this I can agree with. Why don't women get the draft too? They're the ones voting for stuff like this, they are the ones yelling equality... But only when it comes to benefits for them. Meanwhile men get the raw deal in most things in life...
…no thanks? Women are an obvious liability. If I get drafted, I want to minimize my chance of death, and that means NO WOMEN.
If they get drafted, you might not be.
Then my brothers or kids will be at increased risk of dying because equity. If there is a draft, it should be men only.
Women are not made for combat. If you want to dispute the need for a draft, that’s completely separate.
She must like Russian dick.
LMAO, looks like Latvia’s NEETs will be forced to touch grass.
That's a shitty take and you should feel bad.
Why should I give a single fuck about young males? They are inherently expendable because they aren't worth anything.
Peak woman take.
No, collectivism is the peak feminine take. Only women and weak, low status men favor collective action and you're on here pushing collectivism all the time. Maybe there is something to Tony saying that you're a transman.