If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place — Page 77

ferris209 said:

Okay, so if you don't buy that they deserve more sanitary attention than men, how about urinating? What would take a men mere seconds, would take several minutes for a women, which could cause several issues.

 I don't think it takes several minutes more for a woman to urinate.

ferris209 said:

Okay, so if you don't buy that they deserve more sanitary attention than men, how about urinating? What would take a men mere seconds, would take several minutes for a women, which could cause several issues.

I don't buy that women "deserve more sanitary attention?"

Gosh, I feel like such a male chauvinist now!

Bingowings said:

I know present day Warb is officially not going to read this but here goes (for the future, for the unofficial).

While I appreciate the gesture of defending people like myself from prejudice much of that prejudice is coming from parts of the Bible that a large number of Jews, Christians and Muslims either don't take literally or believe no longer applies or never applied to everyone. It's like yeast. Those violent ideas are not always active but it breaks out and spreads often when you least expect it.

So what's to do? I appreciate your concern over family heirlooms and wouldn't want you to chuck them out or chop them up.

You are a Christian. Not a devotee of Ea or Vishnu so while the deluge has some connective tissue to the canonical mythos of Christ it doesn't really have much to do with the teaching of Jesus. Similarly some of the Old Testament sanctions don't chime with what the Savior of the Gospels has to say.

You don't have to physically rip out the pages of the Bible, you can edit them down in your mind.

Peel away the dead wood and leave only what you personally believe and if you don't believe that God wanted people to be stoned to death (Which I've never thought you have) leave that bit out of your personal canon.

You can say it is there in the Bible but I don't believe my God would do that.

Just as if you read someone accusing a beloved relative of doing something horrific you would say I read that but I don't believe it of him or her.

If God has changed and was cruel and sadistic but is now a God of peace and tolerance say that too but if you believe God is still so disgusted by my actions that he wants me violently killed (something you repeatedly say you do not believe and I believe you) don't mention him in defense of what He finds abominable.

It's too paradoxical it's like quoting war criminal to defend civil liberties.

       Actually, the OT is about exactly what I'd expect from a concerned Deity who wished to provide a bit of guidance to a Bronze Age people without "doing the whole deal" for them and defeating the purpose of the test. Even the most harsh measures can work torwards the greatest good and mercy.

       All of these sorts of arguments really come back to The Problem of Evil. Atheists and agnostics have the greatest trouble accepting the proposition that this world is SUPPOSED to be a veil of tears. It's SUPPOSED to be a terrible testing ground. We are cast into the world in order to be subject to the slings and arrows. We are being TESTED to see how well we overcome. Engineers create Destruction Tests where they deliberately press their creations beyond their limits to see if and how they break.

      All of this is horrible. Is it unjustified? Is it Evil? How the hell should I know?! I would have to be certain of the consequences of NOT running the test to be in a position to even begin to find the answer.

       I do know that sneering and declaring, against ever mounting tidal waves of evidence, that "There is no God." won't bring anyone closer to answering anything.

Ryan McAvoy said:

ferris209 said:

the very genetic desire to protect women could interfere with a male soldiers ability to perform his job correctly.

 But wouldn't friendship between men do that too? The more friendly you are with another man ("Your brother in arms") the less likely you'd be to make the correct life-or-death choice, by your logic. Hang on... that means you are saying that unit cohesion itself, is destroying unit cohesion! Ahhh paradox!

 The dynamics of relationships between men and men are far different from men and women. Men in units learn to trust and respect each others abilities and talents, there is a cohesion that they all understand. I am not saying this dynamic can be achieved with women and men, but that it is uncommon. It is natural for men to want to pay more attention and protect women. Also, it is clear genetic make-up that none of us can change. Evolution dictated that women were to tend to the children, cooking, etc. etc. Generally all the stuff that women have done for thousands of years, but when pointed out now you're labeled a chauvinist. This evolution has also caused most women to have a noncompetitive, compassionate disposition and they hardly work well in groups because for thousands of years, they weren't intended to do any type group activities save it cooking or the like. Men, on the other hand, are generally genetically predisposed to be warriors, hunters, strategists, etc. etc. They are also generally very competitive, work as teams, and develop a bond hardly explainable.

Of course, before any of you jump on me, no I do not think these generalizations apply to all women or all men, but it is fact that they were homemakers while men were the hunters, warriors, and gatherers. It is so ingrained in every human's DNA that it is this away across many cultures, continents, and people. From Native Americans to isolated tribes in the Amazon to the Aborigines in Australia, it's just the way it was intended.

I see this regularly in my career. While men handle their calls without any backup, most women sent to similar calls are accompanied by a man. We also find that it is more difficult to work with women as they lack the physical ability to perform many tasks that are expected of us, they lack a competitive mindset and are less of a type A personality and more often than not a type B person, which is why policewomen are generally transferred to investigations, administration, property, or other not as stressful jobs as street work.

Again, I am not saying all women can't be Police Officers, but I have met a handful who were pretty good and far more fishes out of water. One of the best damn female cops I knew was a State Trooper, I'd trust her any day. But her natural her natural tendencies caught up with her, she had a child, and then got fearful of being killed on duty. She gave it up, hung her hat and badge. \

Now many women are officers, medics, etc. but being on a battlefield is a far far different experience than any of those careers.

Bingowings said:

Have you met women or men or just read about them in books?

Almost every woman I've met can pee standing up. Some of the men I know wee sitting down and everyone craps the same.

I guess if that if the situation demanded it they could do what astronauts and pilots sometimes evacuate in their combat suit.

Yes, I am married to a women and have a 5 year old daughter. Yes, I know women can pee standing up, that isn't the issue.

Warbler said:

 I don't think it takes several minutes more for a woman to urinate.

The issue is that they wear a ton of equipment around their waists and along their legs. It can take men in combat anywhere between 5-10 minutes to disrobe appropriately enough, secure your equipment, and take a crap. Fortunately, men only do this once, maybe twice, a day, but women would have to do so far more often potentially holding up a team, risking exposure in battle, increasing her chances of being separated from her equipment etc. etc.

Women in police work I know complain regularly how lucky we are to just unzip and go. Every time they go piss, they've got to completely take off their duty belt (which can be a pain especially after you got it just right and comfortable), they usually take out crap from their pockets (to keep it from falling out), they have secure their duty weapon or at least hold it, plus find somewhere to set down or hang your duty gear, don't want to just chuck it on the bathroom floor. Plus, when they are out directing traffic for a couple hours on a major accident, they have to have another officer relieve them so they can go find a pot. We, on the other hand walk out to the treeline and let loose, not tying up any other officers in the process.

Also, modesty is not welcome in the military. What would happen if her platoon unknowingly captures a shipment of hazardous cantonments? The soldiers would have to immediately strip down to naked, right there in the field to decontaminate and destroy clothes. 

Additionally, what would happen to these women should they be captured? That's great, not only could they be raped repeatedly, but we could get to see our 18-19 year old American women beheaded on LiveLeak.

Plus, if allowing women to serve on the front lines is allowed, how far behind is selective service for girls? I do not know about you guys, but I just don't think I would want my 18 year old daughter, or my son's 23 year old wife, drafted into combat.

We still have the draft?  Huh.

We still have the draft?  Huh.

:-/

:-/

thejediknighthusezni said:

Bingowings said:

I know present day Warb is officially not going to read this but here goes (for the future, for the unofficial).

While I appreciate the gesture of defending people like myself from prejudice much of that prejudice is coming from parts of the Bible that a large number of Jews, Christians and Muslims either don't take literally or believe no longer applies or never applied to everyone. It's like yeast. Those violent ideas are not always active but it breaks out and spreads often when you least expect it.

So what's to do? I appreciate your concern over family heirlooms and wouldn't want you to chuck them out or chop them up.

You are a Christian. Not a devotee of Ea or Vishnu so while the deluge has some connective tissue to the canonical mythos of Christ it doesn't really have much to do with the teaching of Jesus. Similarly some of the Old Testament sanctions don't chime with what the Savior of the Gospels has to say.

You don't have to physically rip out the pages of the Bible, you can edit them down in your mind.

Peel away the dead wood and leave only what you personally believe and if you don't believe that God wanted people to be stoned to death (Which I've never thought you have) leave that bit out of your personal canon.

You can say it is there in the Bible but I don't believe my God would do that.

Just as if you read someone accusing a beloved relative of doing something horrific you would say I read that but I don't believe it of him or her.

If God has changed and was cruel and sadistic but is now a God of peace and tolerance say that too but if you believe God is still so disgusted by my actions that he wants me violently killed (something you repeatedly say you do not believe and I believe you) don't mention him in defense of what He finds abominable.

It's too paradoxical it's like quoting war criminal to defend civil liberties.

       Actually, the OT is about exactly what I'd expect from a concerned Deity who wished to provide a bit of guidance to a Bronze Age people without "doing the whole deal" for them and defeating the purpose of the test. Even the most harsh measures can work torwards the greatest good and mercy.

       All of these sorts of arguments really come back to The Problem of Evil. Atheists and agnostics have the greatest trouble accepting the proposition that this world is SUPPOSED to be a veil of tears. It's SUPPOSED to be a terrible testing ground. We are cast into the world in order to be subject to the slings and arrows. We are being TESTED to see how well we overcome. Engineers create Destruction Tests where they deliberately press their creations beyond their limits to see if and how they break.

      All of this is horrible. Is it unjustified? Is it Evil? How the hell should I know?! I would have to be certain of the consequences of NOT running the test to be in a position to even begin to find the answer.

       I do know that sneering and declaring, against ever mounting tidal waves of evidence, that "There is no God." won't bring anyone closer to answering anything.

My statements still apply.

If you believe in a God who creates a veil of tears and populates it sentient beings who are obviously not going to happy about it and then totally hides from the universe all evidence of himself but reveals his presence to the faithful in a book with clearly man made fairy tales in it I think you'd be a bit dim to not expect Him or Her to expect this sort of thing.

Maybe all the torment in the universe is God's way of getting to watch The Life of Brian.

It doesn't sound like a very impressive God if he has to go through such convoluted motions to get very simple processes to occur or one that requires any respect or worship from the cogs in his machine. It's like rye grains telling oats that the wheat are not to the miller's liking.

He also doesn't sound like the God supposedly speaking through Christ.

Any road up.

Had to scoop up buckets and buckets of rain water again... in the rain, Along with having to water plants in the rain I think there must be a Gnostic message somewhere in all that.

Maybe I need to build a boat?

If women can pee standing up why would they need to take more time to disrobe? Oh because the buttons go the other way...silly, silly silly me.

Maybe the women Ferris knows have weak bladders?

Maybe you want to prohibit people with weak bladders generally rather than women from being in the armed forces?

I personally think people are a bad move. If I were a country my security personnel would all be stones (Not Mick...) or ice those ancient Chinese were onto something there they just didn't build it big enough :

TV's Frink said:

We still have the draft?  Huh.

 Solution.

She's taken something away from Ferris's argument there.

Moth3r said:

Solution 2:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kulLZEBZUOM

 yes, that device could solve some of the problems Ferris meantioned.  

What the piano?

ferris209 said: The dynamics of relationships between men and men are far different from men and women. Men in units learn to trust and respect each others abilities and talents, there is a cohesion that they all understand. I am not saying this dynamic can be achieved with women and men, but that it is uncommon. It is natural for men to want to pay more attention and protect women. Also, it is clear genetic make-up that none of us can change. Evolution dictated that women were to tend to the children, cooking, etc. etc. Generally all the stuff that women have done for thousands of years, but when pointed out now you're labeled a chauvinist. This evolution has also caused most women to have a noncompetitive, compassionate disposition and they hardly work well in groups because for thousands of years, they weren't intended to do any type group activities save it cooking or the like. Men, on the other hand, are generally genetically predisposed to be warriors, hunters, strategists, etc. etc. They are also generally very competitive, work as teams, and develop a bond hardly explainable.

What about all the female sports teams that seem to work well together? 

I see this regularly in my career. While men handle their calls without any backup, most women sent to similar calls are accompanied by a man. We also find that it is more difficult to work with women as they lack the physical ability to perform many tasks that are expected of us,

may I remind you that I argued that women serving on the front should have to meet the same physical standards as the men.   I am sure I could find pics of some very strong women that meet the physical standards required of men serving at the front.

Also, modesty is not welcome in the military. What would happen if her platoon unknowingly captures a shipment of hazardous cantonments? The soldiers would have to immediately strip down to naked, right there in the field to decontaminate and destroy clothes. 

you make a good point here.  But don't you cops sometimes encounter hazardous cantonments in the field?  How do you handle that with female cops?

Additionally, what would happen to these women should they be captured? That's great, not only could they be raped repeatedly, but we could get to see our 18-19 year old American women beheaded on LiveLeak.

the enemy can do terrible things to men they capture as well.   Why is it worse to have an American women beheaded than an American man?

Plus, if allowing women to serve on the front lines is allowed, how far behind is selective service for girls? I do not know about you guys, but I just don't think I would want my 18 year old daughter, or my son's 23 year old wife, drafted into combat.

 we haven't had a draft in years.   Also would your daughter or you son's wife be able to meet physical requirements that men serving on the front have to meet?  One could also argue that by not allowing your daughter or your wife to serve, somebody's son and daughter's husband might have to fight and die in their place. One could argue that is sexist against men.

Another thing, doesn't Israel allow women to serve at the front?  Maybe we could find out how they solve the problems that Ferris meantioned.

Israel demands that all women are anteromingent.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Warbler said:

Another thing, doesn't Israel allow women to serve at the front?  Maybe we could find out how they solve the problems that Ferris meantioned.

 Good point. Being women never stopped Israeli soldiers shooting children, foreign aid workers and journalists.

 I wasn't aware Israeli soldiers did that stuff. 

Boy, I think we know which news outlets Ryan McAvoy relies on.

Which news outlets does everyone else use?

BBC?

Al Jazeera?

Reuters?

The Independent?

Yes, but the fact is that only of a certain political slant (media outlets and audience members) single out Israel while virtually ignoring the numerous human rights violations performed by Arab nations, or virtually every nation, including the stateless PLO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Palestinian_territories

darth_ender said:

Yes, but the fact is that only of a certain political slant (media outlets and audience members) single out Israel while virtually ignoring the numerous human rights violations performed by Arab nations, or virtually every nation, including the stateless PLO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Palestinian_territories

We get reports of that nature too it's disproportionately reported but hardly anyone hears about Price Tag attacks.

Or the Jews who don't like the state of Israel. The most of extreme of which attack Israeli Jews almost as much as settlers attack Arabs in the occupied states.

Israel is like the UK and Japan, a US fiefdom, in a potential rival region.If anyone is too vocally critical about it someone Godwins themselves.

Israel like Saudi Arabia is pretty much given a free ride by the West. If a non-allied state were to suddenly seize a piece of land from a neighbour on the pretext that it was always theirs there would be some cross words... I'd imagine...