<p>@#19
I think it’s just you. If you confidently spot a trend, though, say so; I might be the exception, but I don’t see the trend.</p>
<p>There shouldn’t be a draft in the first place(thats a debate for a whole another thread). However, just because males are susceptible to being drafted doesn’t mean that women should be. After all, that would be like saying that some people suffer b/c they don’t have health insurance so we(for the sake of argument assume that we do) have to give our insurance up so we can suffer along with them. Just b/c one group suffers doesn’t mean that another group should be made to suffer along with them.</p>
<p>@#22
Point Taken. You have, however, considered the case where the draft is denounced as a suffering. (So far the discussions have almost all been neutral on the value of the draft.)
Can you give an opinion that is neutral on the value of the draft?</p>
<p>But the reasoning for the draft is that citizens have a duty to protect their country. As women are also citizens, there’s no real difference. Unless you want to say that only men have such a duty…well, yeah.</p>
<p>@GreekNerd, Simple, if the draft benefits(i.e make more happy and increase safety) those that are drafted, then both males and females should be drafted. And if it’s neutral, then it doesn’t matter. But we all know that fighting in combat is almost never considered a desirable thing by the combatant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL.</p>
<p>Translation: Get in the kitchen, woman! It’s for your own good!</p>
<p>@Taggart, that what we have nukes for.</p>
<p>But even if a situation existed such that we can’t use those weapons, the utmost priority for an individual is to escape the draft. Of course the country may have a priority to conscript as many citizens( male or female. it doesn’t matter) as possible. Its kindof like this; a bear has the right to eat a fish in order to survive but the fish has a right to escape the bear in order to survive. Different entities may do what they wish to survive and the winner, if the entities are in opposition, well, survives.</p>
<p>And finally, why isn’t the male-only draft considered a violation of the 14th amendment, and why do or why don’t you consider it to be?</p>
<p>
~first they don’t want to support us
~then they don’t want us to work
—it’s one or the other, boys (and girls!)—</p>
<p>
Tickles.
A fortiori or a priori, the thesis pushes the legitimacy of marital arrangements and the exclusivity of heterosexic partnerships. In our world, such suppositions are at a disadvantage to their negations, so unfortunately the whole thing is unrealistic.
Conclusion: Male-only conscription belongs with Contemporary Evangelical US Christianity, in Lalaland.</p>
<p>CoffeeBreak – no one was saying people shouldn’t try to avoid it. =P If one happened, I, for one, would escape to the motherland (as it is within my legal right to do so!). I also think most people here agree that a draft occurring at any point in time would be ultimate suckage.</p>
<p>Women aren’t allowed to have most combat jobs anyways. They can’t be in the infantry, armor, field artillery, etc. I assume that a draft would be aimed at filling mainly direct-combat positions which women aren’t allowed to fill anyways, so no, I don’t believe that they should be drafted.</p>
<p>Women and men should both have to sign up for a draft, if there is one. As for who should fight in combat positions, let me ask you:</p>
<p>A) Should small-framed men be excluded from combat positions in a draft because they are not suited for fighting (or because it would be “optimal” to have the large-framed men in those positions)?</p>
<p>B) If there is a man who would be an excellent non-combat member in an army (much better than anyone else), and there is a woman who would not be as good a combat member in the army but would still be pretty good, who should be sent into the combat position? </p>
<p>C) Is it really “economical” or “optimal” to send those most suited for combat (supposedly males) into combat positions, even if they are much better at other non-combat roles? This is related to (B) and the economic analogy: if Tiger Woods were a better gardener than Joe the gardener, should he water his own plants all day or let Joe do it?</p>
<p>That is all.</p>
<p>In an episode of “Everybody Loves Raymond”, Ray accuses Debra of hoarding all the household chores so that she can take up the martyr role and constantly hold that over Ray’s head.</p>
<p>I feel like when it comes to the draft, some men are like Debra in that they want to keep military obligations to themselves, even if it means more work and death for them, just to have that almighty upper hand on women. In case women ever forget their place in society, men will always have the draft card to fall back on (even if you’re a Republican chickenhawk).</p>
<p>I say we draft women too. If they’re not fit for combat, then they’ll be weeded out during basic training. Same standards should apply for both men and women.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yikes, that’s unsubstantiated! I don’t think most men believe that at all. Most either note fundamental differences between men and women, or simply think that the draft as it was was unfair.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one got weeded out during basic training. Otherwise there was a moral hazard problem…everyone would be a wuss in basic training to avoid the draft!!!</p>
<p>I agree with your main point though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, pugfug. Maybe I’m misreading or misinterpreting your quote. Are you saying that certain races are superior/inferior in certain physical and mental characteristics vis a vis other races? Please elaborate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not such a controversial argument to make. African Americans are less prone to malaria due to some of their genes…but they are more susceptible to sickle-cell. Ashkenazi Jews are more prone to certain diseases too. Inferior/Superior is an outside judgment, but I don’t think it’s a far-fetched claim to make. </p>
<p>Though there is no evidence of mental differentiation between races. But no one has studied this topic very closely either (due to political correctness, or genuine fear of future racism, who knows).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They pretty much are. I’m 6’0 and 150 lbs and I probably wouldn’t be able to branch infantry if I did ROTC here. You have to be pretty strong and pretty beastly to get infantry/armor etc, otherwise the Army will find something else for you to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The man. Having a woman in say an infantry unit would break unit cohesion, stir up tension (guys competing over her) and could generally place her male colleagues in danger (ie they always feel the need to protect her). Also, if she doesn’t want to deploy she can just get pregnant and then the unit is facing a crucial loss. Also, it would raise a whole new series of social issues…ie if women were allowed to fill combat positions, would male vs female violence at home somehow become more acceptable? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This one is tougher. In the case of a draft, we would probably need fighters more than other things…honestly I have to say I’m not sure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Susceptibility to diseases is not neatly categorized in America-centric racial categories. There aren’t “black diseases” and “white diseases” and “Asian diseases” and “Jewish diseases”.</p>
<p>For example, that same vulnerabilities found in Africans north of the Sahara are also found in the Mediterranean peoples of Europe. And why not? They live in similar climates that surround the Mediterranean Ocean. Of course, racists hate hearing this because that completely breaks down their superficial lookism (“facism”, if you will).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s why most people in our all-volunteer military are Republican.</p>