This is an example of why arguments are futile when dealing with dishonest agents. They aren’t discussing equality, they are discussing “equality”.
Suddenly the meaning of the word is subverted - the truth is, they want to be able to redefine it on the fly.
Is there any chance of them having a reasonable exchange of views if they wish to change the meaning of words? None. You are no longer speaking the same language.
I’m not exaggerating. I noticed that particular piece of perfidy was used throughout the original posting here.
“ There was a law that said women have to give birth. “
Name the law, then.
“ Abortion was against the law. “
And so it begins: a quick shuffle of the goalposts. Infanticide has often been illegal, yes. It’s always been a legal compromise between the interests of the parents and the child as to when one can kill the other.
But abortion has nothing to do with conscription. This is a deflection.
In fact, almost all of this is deflection. The OP will do almost anything to avoid the discussion of conscription.
Instead, they want to discuss every other topic under the sun in the hope of doing the good old Gish Gallop.
TALK. ABOUT. CONSCRIPTION.
“ it practically was women’s responsibility to give birth “
I have to laugh at that one tho’ - yes, if women didn’t give birth, the society perished. Only a feminist could decide that a biological necessity was a conspiracy against them by those wicked Old White Men.
“ Therefore, if you’re truly interested in equality, then if you believe it is right to have women drafted for warfare alongside men, then you’d equally believe it’d be right for technology to be built to enable men to give birth also, if there were a childbirth draft. “
A technology that doesn’t exist, may never exist, and logically, wouldn’t require men to be pregnant either. How fucking desperate do you have to be to avoid discussing conscription that you say “it can only apply to us if pink unicorns carry us to and from battle”.
STICK TO BLOODY REALITY, NOT HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS.
Pregnancy has actually been used as an out for women in countries with female conscription, so your argument has already been a failure.
But the practical consequence of that is - you have absolutely no excuse not to be drafted if not pregnant. Many women can’t get pregnant ever, and long term contraceptives are readily available. The technological barrier to female combatants has disappeared.
You just don’t want to do it. You have decided that equality means HeForShe - men must die for the good of women. You have decided that just because some women can get pregnant, then all women must be exempt.
Well, so fucking what? Some men are disabled - they are then exempted from most duties - but there are still jobs they can do.
Feminists claim a pregnant woman can run a country - and having given birth, can keep doing so - but never have to get their hands dirty like men do with the business of killing?
|It's always important to have a nice nap in the middle of running the fucking country. |
I adore the fact that Feminists can be this bloody pampered
and still manage to spin it all into their narrative of being oppressed.
Can anyone tell me how she can be competent enough to organise a war, yet too incompetent to operate a drone?
I do think it's hilarious that the Topless MP sketch from Tracey Ullman's show would turn out to be less extreme than the Feminist reality.
|Welcome to your new Commander, Marine!|
"“Since the PFT score is tied directly to promotion, there is already a sentiment that the scoring system is not fair,” the officer said."
So in other words, men will be actively discriminated against by female officers who will never have to work as hard as they do. Sounds like a Feminist wet-dream.