There is something to be said about Twitter and news when old school news media run entire segments based on tweets. The more I think about it the more it sounds like the plot of a bad middle school dystopian story.
Could argue that depending on the elsewhere the lax labor laws could run against your morals.
If I buy a T-Shirt made in a sweatshop using child labor does that make it less moral than if I bought it from a local manufacturer abiding by those labor laws I find moral and voted for?
Obviously, that falls apart if the elsewhere has the same or similar labor laws.
GP isn't American so I assume his exposure to US news and internal events are limited. That doesn't change the fact. Just a quick google search shows as much.
Some sources: USAToday, CNN, Slate, NYTimes, Democracy Now, the Atlantic, NPR, Seattle Times, and Vanity Fair all on the first page and all the time of the inauguration.
Honestly, the claim GP makes is specious at best because every anti-Trump protest has been widely reported on. I hear about each one everytime on NPR at the very least the same day or next day (sometimes before or all the listed). Just today, protests about the trans ban in the military is being reported on widely and extensively. It's hard not to hear about those protests any time they occur because #resisttrump. Maybe now they are not being as extensive because they are so common it's nearly routine.
How do you quantify that those events aren't being reported on?
the 'right' has had a grudge ever since 'that black guy' got into office.
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 but I remember distinctly the day after the election that CNN and other news talking heads generalize the election to racism. "What we learned last night is that there are not enough racists to defeat Obama.". Any time I disagreed with Obama for any reason during the last 8 years I was called a racist.
Maybe that grudge is because a lot of people are tired of being called a racist because they vote for the other guy. What is the point in trying to have a discussion if you will call me racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic when we disagree?
I know more people that are fed up being called *ist because they have different needs and wants from the federal government then actual *ists.
The womens march after the inauguration was seen as interesting and reported on quite extensively. After you get the same protest (anti-Trump) going on and on and on there isn't much that is newsworthy beyond that it happened again. Oh look another anti-Trump protest, I wonder what their message is *rolls eyes*. How many anti-Trump protests do you think I need to see to understand that you don't like Trump?
I don't care if you protest and that is your right but the times that it does get violent (which has increased) I see apology and justification for violence by the media and people. That is more concerning to me than another anti-Trump rally upset over a tweet. The reason why "a group of people rioted" is more concerning is because they are breaking social norms that we all agreed on.
It's relevant because it distracts from the actual science and there a lot of people pushing for those kind "genders". Is it something that should be addressed when there is a vocal group of people that want to teach creationism next to evolution? Is it an issue to "teach the controversy of global warming"? Same thing different subject.
I have no problem with the science but there is a vocal group that bastardizes the science to push an agenda. That list of "genders" on Wikipedia is evidence to that fact and it's not just Wikipedia. Go figure this isn't immune from politics.
An AC posted a list of genders from wikipedia's gender dysphoria page.
Race, religious belief, practices, and slang DO NOT have any scientific basis to be classified as a separate gender. You are not a different gender because you are South Asian. You are not a different gender because you believe in native American voodoo.
IIRC, it happened with addyi and the FDA. Sprout used the "you're a sexist if you don't approve this drug" and the FDA approved it with very bad evidence of safety and efficacy.
Same rights? What rights are being taken away? The military bans lots of people for a variety of health and physical requirements. How is this any different?
Would be certainly stronger than Clinton because "haven't done anything illegal or corrupt". Give it a second thought and keep your fap folder private.
it's not a coincidence that "moral" and "morale" are basically the same word. Sun Tzu lists "moral law" as one of his five constants of war: align your army with your stated aims and you have a cohesive fighting force that will do their utmost add a bunch of random rules that have no effect on the mission, and you have a less effective, more cynical, less motivated force.;
This is your quote with emphasis added. Those are your words. What do you think a "cohesive fighting force that will do their utmost" means in the application of war?
You don't even know what you said or trying to say.
because it makes special considerations that normally would not apply. It sets them apart as a special class because they don't have to follow the same standards and rules. I am sure there are a number of trans that would be just fine in the military but even just the suicidal rates are abnormally high and need to be considered. Especially when the military has trouble with suicide rates as it is. There are other factors of hormones, mental/emotional stability, and other health considerations that make it an issue for the very small minority that would be affected. That isn't even getting into integration for team cohesion.
It's like lowering the physical training requirements for women to meet diversity quotas. I don't mind women doing those things but don't lower the bar to get them in. Same with trans.
In the end, it's about combat effectiveness not about what is politically correct.
"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
You missed the point of Sun Tzu you referenced and moved the goal post.
When you talk about cohesive fighting force you are talking about combat effectiveness i.e. the lethality of the military. This is what my comment was about because that is what the military is about not "equality".
When you are talking about forces needed to deter war are talking about diplomacy and force projection. There is overlap because force projection includes combat effectiveness and lethality.
They should be free to decide whether that risk is worthwhile for them or not.
This is fundamentally wrong. They are not free because you give up your freedom when you join the military. The risks are not just personal for them to decide but to everyone who relies on you.
No it needs to be the forefront of lethality. Everything the military does is in service to killing the enemy. The point of Sun Tzu "moral law" isn't that the army needs be moral but to be a "cohesive fighting force" which demonstrably increases the lethality of that fighting force. Everything is secondary to killing the enemy.
Some are worse than others. It's on the electorate who is on strong grounds. I am glad Clinton was rejected because she normalized corruption to a whole new level that would have been a detriment to the Republic.
How many people in 1885 could afford Karl Benz's car? They probably waited for the Model T in 1908 but missed out on the Model A. $800-$900. While affordable still very much a luxury item.
Because nothing the rich have ever make to the average Joe. Now, if you'll excuse me while I use my cell phone telephone to call my mom upstairs to get in her car to buy me a big screen plasma TV.
Slashdot Mirror
There is something to be said about Twitter and news when old school news media run entire segments based on tweets. The more I think about it the more it sounds like the plot of a bad middle school dystopian story.
Could argue that depending on the elsewhere the lax labor laws could run against your morals.
If I buy a T-Shirt made in a sweatshop using child labor does that make it less moral than if I bought it from a local manufacturer abiding by those labor laws I find moral and voted for?
Obviously, that falls apart if the elsewhere has the same or similar labor laws.
GP isn't American so I assume his exposure to US news and internal events are limited. That doesn't change the fact. Just a quick google search shows as much.
Some sources: USAToday, CNN, Slate, NYTimes, Democracy Now, the Atlantic, NPR, Seattle Times, and Vanity Fair all on the first page and all the time of the inauguration.
Honestly, the claim GP makes is specious at best because every anti-Trump protest has been widely reported on. I hear about each one everytime on NPR at the very least the same day or next day (sometimes before or all the listed). Just today, protests about the trans ban in the military is being reported on widely and extensively. It's hard not to hear about those protests any time they occur because #resisttrump. Maybe now they are not being as extensive because they are so common it's nearly routine.
How do you quantify that those events aren't being reported on?
the 'right' has had a grudge ever since 'that black guy' got into office.
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 but I remember distinctly the day after the election that CNN and other news talking heads generalize the election to racism. "What we learned last night is that there are not enough racists to defeat Obama.". Any time I disagreed with Obama for any reason during the last 8 years I was called a racist.
Maybe that grudge is because a lot of people are tired of being called a racist because they vote for the other guy. What is the point in trying to have a discussion if you will call me racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic when we disagree?
I know more people that are fed up being called *ist because they have different needs and wants from the federal government then actual *ists.
The womens march after the inauguration was seen as interesting and reported on quite extensively. After you get the same protest (anti-Trump) going on and on and on there isn't much that is newsworthy beyond that it happened again. Oh look another anti-Trump protest, I wonder what their message is *rolls eyes*. How many anti-Trump protests do you think I need to see to understand that you don't like Trump?
I don't care if you protest and that is your right but the times that it does get violent (which has increased) I see apology and justification for violence by the media and people. That is more concerning to me than another anti-Trump rally upset over a tweet. The reason why "a group of people rioted" is more concerning is because they are breaking social norms that we all agreed on.
The women's march that happened the day after the inauguration was peaceful and was reported on pretty much every news network.
p.s. happy!
It's relevant because it distracts from the actual science and there a lot of people pushing for those kind "genders". Is it something that should be addressed when there is a vocal group of people that want to teach creationism next to evolution? Is it an issue to "teach the controversy of global warming"? Same thing different subject.
I have no problem with the science but there is a vocal group that bastardizes the science to push an agenda. That list of "genders" on Wikipedia is evidence to that fact and it's not just Wikipedia. Go figure this isn't immune from politics.
An AC posted a list of genders from wikipedia's gender dysphoria page.
Race, religious belief, practices, and slang DO NOT have any scientific basis to be classified as a separate gender. You are not a different gender because you are South Asian. You are not a different gender because you believe in native American voodoo.
IIRC, it happened with addyi and the FDA. Sprout used the "you're a sexist if you don't approve this drug" and the FDA approved it with very bad evidence of safety and efficacy.
Same rights? What rights are being taken away? The military bans lots of people for a variety of health and physical requirements. How is this any different?
Would be certainly stronger than Clinton because "haven't done anything illegal or corrupt". Give it a second thought and keep your fap folder private.
it's not a coincidence that "moral" and "morale" are basically the same word. Sun Tzu lists "moral law" as one of his five constants of war: align your army with your stated aims and you have a cohesive fighting force that will do their utmost add a bunch of random rules that have no effect on the mission, and you have a less effective, more cynical, less motivated force.;
This is your quote with emphasis added. Those are your words. What do you think a "cohesive fighting force that will do their utmost" means in the application of war?
You don't even know what you said or trying to say.
because it makes special considerations that normally would not apply. It sets them apart as a special class because they don't have to follow the same standards and rules. I am sure there are a number of trans that would be just fine in the military but even just the suicidal rates are abnormally high and need to be considered. Especially when the military has trouble with suicide rates as it is. There are other factors of hormones, mental/emotional stability, and other health considerations that make it an issue for the very small minority that would be affected. That isn't even getting into integration for team cohesion.
It's like lowering the physical training requirements for women to meet diversity quotas. I don't mind women doing those things but don't lower the bar to get them in. Same with trans.
In the end, it's about combat effectiveness not about what is politically correct.
"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
You missed the point of Sun Tzu you referenced and moved the goal post.
When you talk about cohesive fighting force you are talking about combat effectiveness i.e. the lethality of the military. This is what my comment was about because that is what the military is about not "equality".
When you are talking about forces needed to deter war are talking about diplomacy and force projection. There is overlap because force projection includes combat effectiveness and lethality.
They should be free to decide whether that risk is worthwhile for them or not.
This is fundamentally wrong. They are not free because you give up your freedom when you join the military. The risks are not just personal for them to decide but to everyone who relies on you.
Meanwhile the root causes and worst problems of liberalism run unchecked
Political correctness? I agree.
You seem upset. Would you like a hug?
but it needs to be at the forefront of equality:
No it needs to be the forefront of lethality. Everything the military does is in service to killing the enemy. The point of Sun Tzu "moral law" isn't that the army needs be moral but to be a "cohesive fighting force" which demonstrably increases the lethality of that fighting force. Everything is secondary to killing the enemy.
Well yea. The baby was an actual nazi and it's acceptable to punch a nazi. #punchanazi
Some are worse than others. It's on the electorate who is on strong grounds. I am glad Clinton was rejected because she normalized corruption to a whole new level that would have been a detriment to the Republic.
Then run for office if you are any better.
Well, unless you mean my mom but she has always been affordable... ... ... She calls me her little business expense. =/
o.O
Which average Joe would pay $5000 for a cell phone telephone
Or $15000 for big screen TV
How many people in 1885 could afford Karl Benz's car? They probably waited for the Model T in 1908 but missed out on the Model A. $800-$900. While affordable still very much a luxury item.
Now, being in the basement is odd considering that we have double the size of an average Joe house.
I honestly have absolutely no idea what you mean.
Because nothing the rich have ever make to the average Joe. Now, if you'll excuse me while I use my cell phone telephone to call my mom upstairs to get in her car to buy me a big screen plasma TV.