Sorry, there wasn't a free, complete, online analysis that exactly provided everything a homophobic chickenhawk civilian might ask for.
That's quite a leap you made, assuming that I'm a homophobic chickenhawk (statistically, it's much better odds that I'm a civilian than military). I'd inclined to ask how you arrived at that conclusion, but since you're resorting to ad hominem attacks, obviously you don't feel like engaging in a good faith debate. Good day, good sir.
Drones immediately spring to mind. Doesn't require that much in the way of physical strength you can put the piloting stations in well-fortified bunkers. 30 seconds on Google didn't yield me any gender ratio statistics but I'd be curious to know what the current ratio of male-to-female drone operators is.
The study says there was no effect on readiness which is the ability of a unit to conduct its mission. It said nothing about the raising or lowering of morale one way or another. It's half an answer.
How do you cope with a guy who claims to be a woman? Do they get to do PT based on woman's rules or men's rules? Can the woman be medically discharged because the believe they are a man but can't do 80 pushups in under 2 minutes? Don't you believe more and more soldiers would not just try to drop out medically, but claim to be a more convenient gender for things like PT testing and promotion consideration?
FWIW, an acquaintance of mine is an Army doctor and I asked him about it. The current policy is that a soldier is considered to be the same gender as what's marked on his/her birth certificate unless they have completed the full gender reassignment process; psychiatric counseling, hormone therapy, surgery, the whole kit and kaboodle.
Transgender is an umbrella term. Gender dysphoria, a subset of transgenderism, is considered a medical disorder by both the 2017 ICD-10 and the 2013 DSM-5.
While it is based on climate, the practice actually originated with the ancient Romans and followed their conquest and colonization of various territories. The Italians maintain the practice under the name "riposo". In my experience, it's normally the smaller or independent businesses that maintain the practice. For example, my local butcher, grocer, and mechanic all maintain the practice, as do the smaller downtown "boutique" stores, but the chain shops in the mall and chain supermarkets don't. On the other hand, a lot of the chain stores don't open until 1000. On another interesting note, in some provinces maintaining the riposo practice entitles you to tax breaks, which I expect it what drives a lot of the smaller shops to maintain the practice.
The Greeks, Portugese, and some areas in southern France have a similar tradition, but I haven't traveled as extensively in those areas and can't comment beyond that.
Well, that's a neat rhetorical trick. Let me try: "Show me a link to similar complaints against Trump's crass comments. Otherwise I'm just going to assume you regularly sodomize pre-pubescent girls." How did I do?
Returning to civility, I can't provide what you ask for since I don't recall any Obama-defunding-rules-he-didn't-like making it onto Slashdot. That said, between our exchanges on this thread and review of your past comment history, I don't think you actually care to debate in good faith. Therefore this will be my last reply to you in this thread. Please enjoy your day.
Unless you have psychic ability (in which case James Randi has a large amount of money for you) refrain from telling me what I do or do not think about a certain subject.
Let me re-iterate, since you missed it the first time: I don't care what political party or ideology a politician is aligned with. If they ignore the rule of law, they are a threat to American democracy. Excusing someone because their opponent did it first is how a civil society dies.
People have an unfortunate tendency to think that they will always be in charge of the power structures they create and that's there's no way their opponents will ever take charge of them.
I'm not certain if you're a troll or not, but on the off chance you're serious:
First, it is possible to think that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama have performed or attempted to perform gross over-reaches of executive authority. I didn't vote for Trump, but my greatest hope for the next four years is that Congress realizes that it, not the President, creates policy.
Second, but probably more important, are you seriously going to mount "Well he did it too!" as a counter-argument? I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks, but are you really that stupid? The idea that "they broke the rules so we're justified in breaking the rules" is how rule of law dies. Every time. Read the history of the Roman civil wars and pay close attention to Maurius. If that's too far back in the mists of antiquity, take a survey of the African continent over the last 40 years. When we ignore the rule of law simply to further our own ends, that's how civil government dies.
The bad thing about it is that it is basically an admission of defeat in preventing people from shooting at each other in the first place. It solves the wrong problem. The problem that needs to be solved is how do we prevent the violence before it occurs rather than how do we catch offenders more quickly after the fact. Something like this makes sense in a war zone but if you need to install it during what is ostensibly peacetime then something is terribly wrong with public policy.
If you can figure out how to fix human nature, there's a Nobel Peace Prize, and probably a dozen or so prestigious prizes in philosophy and biology for you. Until then, we have interim solutions such as these.
Well said! I'd mod you up except 1) I don't have mod-points and 2) I've already commented. I've noticed a trend in the last decade or so to simply disregarding the outcome of legal proceedings or elections simply because we don't like the outcome. By sheer happenstance of timing, I'm currently reading about the run-up to the American Civil War. I'm struck by the loose parallels of the times. We have a president that about half the country hates* prompting the threat of secession**, the rhetorical attacks from each side are escalating to almost religious fervor, and there seems to be a growing acceptance of violence over debate and legislature as acceptable political tactics. We haven't reached the equivalent of Bleeding Kansas yet, but if we don't figure out a way to regain that American genius for confining civic conflict to arguments on the Congressional floor, we might find ourselves back there again..
*No, I'm not saying Trump is the next Lincoln or implying the two men are even remotely equal in capability or stature.
**Before anyone starts in on Texas, Texas is always threatening to secede. It's the state past-time, next to drinking and football.
3/ Instability - a President that "shakes things up" means that the US government is so distracted that Russia can get away with actions in the surrounding countries that would normally draw US attention. As an extreme example, if Putin invaded Ukraine tomorrow (he going for slow and sure so not going to happen) it's very unlikely that there would be a timely response of any kind, not even sanctions.
Somewhat off-topic, but even if Trump wasn't President I doubt there would be swift action against Russia for invading a Baltic State (far more likely than the Ukraine right now). The international community doesn't seem to move swiftly about anything anymore except posturing.
I want to rephrase your comment, so that I'm absolutely sure that I'm understanding your meaning correctly. Are you saying that anyone, be it a state or an individual voter, who voted for Trump doesn't matter? That the only portion of the country that matters is the the part that didn't vote for Trump?
You seem to have a substantially different perspective on UBI than ones I've encountered in the past. Would you mind answering some good-faith questions?
Even with UBI there are people who can't manage money...and UBI would have them starve homeless as their basic income wouldn't be spent wisely on things they need but what they want right now.
Are you proposing we budget people's UBI for them, break out the housing, food, etc for them? Are you proposing limiting this to the mentally impaired or casting a wider net? For example, my sister-in-law is a functioning adult but can't balance a budget to save her soul. Would you propose spending her money for her to as to ensure she makes "wise" choices?
But my biggest consern about UBI is it is a nice way to wipe our hands clean of that pesky poverty problem and not having to care for the less fortunate.
I'm obviously missing something here. UBI is generally touted as an antidote to poverty. How would implementing this mean that we're no longer caring for the less fortunate?
The money comes disproportionately from the people that hold a grossly disproportionate amount of the wealth.
I'm genuinely curious as to what you consider proportionate. I see these "fair/proportionate/just"-style arguements used often, but I've rarely seen anyone put numbers to them. How do we decide proportionality? How much money is too much? Please use actual numbers in your reply.
If I'm reading the article correctly, the portability rules affect streaming services, but not governments. A government can still legally censor content. To go back to your Germany example, you would still have access to your movies or games with Nazi imagery but further purchases of similar material would be heavily scrutinized.
I'm not sure how this would work with the BBC though. Can someone from the UK shed some light?
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert. This is a layman's understanding of the situation
The short version: Another example of ethnic tensions in west Asia. Segments of the Kurdish population consider Turkey an occupying power. Segments of the Turkish population view Kurds as terrorists. Both feel justified in inflicting pain on the other.
A slightly longer version: The Kurds haven't done well in the grand game of empires. To my knowledge, while the Kurds have traditional homelands, known as Kurdistan,, they've never been their own nation. Kurdistan encompasses portions of northern Syria, northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, and, you guessed it, southeastern Turkey. Kurds haven't been particularly well treated by any of the aforementioned nations (Saddam Hussein infamously used chemical weapons on the Kurds during the Gulf War) but Turkey generally deals with Kurdish uprisings more harshly.
Kurds have been rebelling against the Turkish government since around 1920. As I understand it, they placed a lot of hope in the Wilsonian ideal of ethnic self-determination, but the Turkish government had other ideas in the wake of WWI. The Turkish government routinely cracks down on the Kurds, going so far as to ban the use of the Kurdish language. In response, there have been a handful of Kurdish uprisings or sustain terrorist campaigns by Kurdish nationalists against the Turkish government. In response, the Turkish government routinely cracks down on the Kurds. And so the cycle goes. For their part, nationalist Turks don't recognize Kurds as a separate ethnic group. They refer to Kurds as "mountain Turks", considering a subset of the Turkish ethnicity who somehow lost the Turkish language. The Turkish government is adamant about maintaining territorial integrity and views any sort of Kurdish political autonomy as a threat to the sovereignty of the Turkish government.
I'm certainly not trying to throw shade and if I pissed you off, that wasn't my intention. I really was just adding my two cents and making some general observations from my previous experiences. I'm guessing my tone was lost in translation.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, there wasn't a free, complete, online analysis that exactly provided everything a homophobic chickenhawk civilian might ask for.
That's quite a leap you made, assuming that I'm a homophobic chickenhawk (statistically, it's much better odds that I'm a civilian than military). I'd inclined to ask how you arrived at that conclusion, but since you're resorting to ad hominem attacks, obviously you don't feel like engaging in a good faith debate. Good day, good sir.
Drones immediately spring to mind. Doesn't require that much in the way of physical strength you can put the piloting stations in well-fortified bunkers. 30 seconds on Google didn't yield me any gender ratio statistics but I'd be curious to know what the current ratio of male-to-female drone operators is.
The study says there was no effect on readiness which is the ability of a unit to conduct its mission. It said nothing about the raising or lowering of morale one way or another. It's half an answer.
How do you cope with a guy who claims to be a woman? Do they get to do PT based on woman's rules or men's rules? Can the woman be medically discharged because the believe they are a man but can't do 80 pushups in under 2 minutes? Don't you believe more and more soldiers would not just try to drop out medically, but claim to be a more convenient gender for things like PT testing and promotion consideration?
FWIW, an acquaintance of mine is an Army doctor and I asked him about it. The current policy is that a soldier is considered to be the same gender as what's marked on his/her birth certificate unless they have completed the full gender reassignment process; psychiatric counseling, hormone therapy, surgery, the whole kit and kaboodle.
Transgender is an umbrella term. Gender dysphoria, a subset of transgenderism, is considered a medical disorder by both the 2017 ICD-10 and the 2013 DSM-5.
While it is based on climate, the practice actually originated with the ancient Romans and followed their conquest and colonization of various territories. The Italians maintain the practice under the name "riposo". In my experience, it's normally the smaller or independent businesses that maintain the practice. For example, my local butcher, grocer, and mechanic all maintain the practice, as do the smaller downtown "boutique" stores, but the chain shops in the mall and chain supermarkets don't. On the other hand, a lot of the chain stores don't open until 1000. On another interesting note, in some provinces maintaining the riposo practice entitles you to tax breaks, which I expect it what drives a lot of the smaller shops to maintain the practice.
The Greeks, Portugese, and some areas in southern France have a similar tradition, but I haven't traveled as extensively in those areas and can't comment beyond that.
Well, that's a neat rhetorical trick. Let me try: "Show me a link to similar complaints against Trump's crass comments. Otherwise I'm just going to assume you regularly sodomize pre-pubescent girls." How did I do?
Returning to civility, I can't provide what you ask for since I don't recall any Obama-defunding-rules-he-didn't-like making it onto Slashdot. That said, between our exchanges on this thread and review of your past comment history, I don't think you actually care to debate in good faith. Therefore this will be my last reply to you in this thread. Please enjoy your day.
Unless you have psychic ability (in which case James Randi has a large amount of money for you) refrain from telling me what I do or do not think about a certain subject. Let me re-iterate, since you missed it the first time: I don't care what political party or ideology a politician is aligned with. If they ignore the rule of law, they are a threat to American democracy. Excusing someone because their opponent did it first is how a civil society dies.
People have an unfortunate tendency to think that they will always be in charge of the power structures they create and that's there's no way their opponents will ever take charge of them.
I'm not certain if you're a troll or not, but on the off chance you're serious:
First, it is possible to think that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama have performed or attempted to perform gross over-reaches of executive authority. I didn't vote for Trump, but my greatest hope for the next four years is that Congress realizes that it, not the President, creates policy.
Second, but probably more important, are you seriously going to mount "Well he did it too!" as a counter-argument? I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks, but are you really that stupid? The idea that "they broke the rules so we're justified in breaking the rules" is how rule of law dies. Every time. Read the history of the Roman civil wars and pay close attention to Maurius. If that's too far back in the mists of antiquity, take a survey of the African continent over the last 40 years. When we ignore the rule of law simply to further our own ends, that's how civil government dies.
The bad thing about it is that it is basically an admission of defeat in preventing people from shooting at each other in the first place. It solves the wrong problem. The problem that needs to be solved is how do we prevent the violence before it occurs rather than how do we catch offenders more quickly after the fact. Something like this makes sense in a war zone but if you need to install it during what is ostensibly peacetime then something is terribly wrong with public policy.
If you can figure out how to fix human nature, there's a Nobel Peace Prize, and probably a dozen or so prestigious prizes in philosophy and biology for you. Until then, we have interim solutions such as these.
Now THAT is a war crime. Think the Hague might re-institute the firing squad?
Well said! I'd mod you up except 1) I don't have mod-points and 2) I've already commented. I've noticed a trend in the last decade or so to simply disregarding the outcome of legal proceedings or elections simply because we don't like the outcome. By sheer happenstance of timing, I'm currently reading about the run-up to the American Civil War. I'm struck by the loose parallels of the times. We have a president that about half the country hates* prompting the threat of secession**, the rhetorical attacks from each side are escalating to almost religious fervor, and there seems to be a growing acceptance of violence over debate and legislature as acceptable political tactics. We haven't reached the equivalent of Bleeding Kansas yet, but if we don't figure out a way to regain that American genius for confining civic conflict to arguments on the Congressional floor, we might find ourselves back there again..
*No, I'm not saying Trump is the next Lincoln or implying the two men are even remotely equal in capability or stature.
**Before anyone starts in on Texas, Texas is always threatening to secede. It's the state past-time, next to drinking and football.
3/ Instability - a President that "shakes things up" means that the US government is so distracted that Russia can get away with actions in the surrounding countries that would normally draw US attention. As an extreme example, if Putin invaded Ukraine tomorrow (he going for slow and sure so not going to happen) it's very unlikely that there would be a timely response of any kind, not even sanctions.
Somewhat off-topic, but even if Trump wasn't President I doubt there would be swift action against Russia for invading a Baltic State (far more likely than the Ukraine right now). The international community doesn't seem to move swiftly about anything anymore except posturing.
I want to rephrase your comment, so that I'm absolutely sure that I'm understanding your meaning correctly. Are you saying that anyone, be it a state or an individual voter, who voted for Trump doesn't matter? That the only portion of the country that matters is the the part that didn't vote for Trump?
I wear a size 10, you insensitive clog.
Fixed that for you. I'll show myself out...
Hypothetically, would you be okay with getting rid of food stamps and welfare if Congress mandated a living wage?
There are lot of things to like about Texas, but DPS is not one of them.
Interesting and food for though. Thank you for a good-faith response.
Even with UBI there are people who can't manage money...and UBI would have them starve homeless as their basic income wouldn't be spent wisely on things they need but what they want right now.
Are you proposing we budget people's UBI for them, break out the housing, food, etc for them? Are you proposing limiting this to the mentally impaired or casting a wider net? For example, my sister-in-law is a functioning adult but can't balance a budget to save her soul. Would you propose spending her money for her to as to ensure she makes "wise" choices?
But my biggest consern about UBI is it is a nice way to wipe our hands clean of that pesky poverty problem and not having to care for the less fortunate.
I'm obviously missing something here. UBI is generally touted as an antidote to poverty. How would implementing this mean that we're no longer caring for the less fortunate?
The money comes disproportionately from the people that hold a grossly disproportionate amount of the wealth.
I'm genuinely curious as to what you consider proportionate. I see these "fair/proportionate/just"-style arguements used often, but I've rarely seen anyone put numbers to them. How do we decide proportionality? How much money is too much? Please use actual numbers in your reply.
Do you have sources for any of these numbers you're talking about?
If I'm reading the article correctly, the portability rules affect streaming services, but not governments. A government can still legally censor content. To go back to your Germany example, you would still have access to your movies or games with Nazi imagery but further purchases of similar material would be heavily scrutinized.
I'm not sure how this would work with the BBC though. Can someone from the UK shed some light?
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert. This is a layman's understanding of the situation
The short version: Another example of ethnic tensions in west Asia. Segments of the Kurdish population consider Turkey an occupying power. Segments of the Turkish population view Kurds as terrorists. Both feel justified in inflicting pain on the other.
A slightly longer version: The Kurds haven't done well in the grand game of empires. To my knowledge, while the Kurds have traditional homelands, known as Kurdistan,, they've never been their own nation. Kurdistan encompasses portions of northern Syria, northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, and, you guessed it, southeastern Turkey. Kurds haven't been particularly well treated by any of the aforementioned nations (Saddam Hussein infamously used chemical weapons on the Kurds during the Gulf War) but Turkey generally deals with Kurdish uprisings more harshly.
Kurds have been rebelling against the Turkish government since around 1920. As I understand it, they placed a lot of hope in the Wilsonian ideal of ethnic self-determination, but the Turkish government had other ideas in the wake of WWI. The Turkish government routinely cracks down on the Kurds, going so far as to ban the use of the Kurdish language. In response, there have been a handful of Kurdish uprisings or sustain terrorist campaigns by Kurdish nationalists against the Turkish government. In response, the Turkish government routinely cracks down on the Kurds. And so the cycle goes.
For their part, nationalist Turks don't recognize Kurds as a separate ethnic group. They refer to Kurds as "mountain Turks", considering a subset of the Turkish ethnicity who somehow lost the Turkish language. The Turkish government is adamant about maintaining territorial integrity and views any sort of Kurdish political autonomy as a threat to the sovereignty of the Turkish government.
I'm certainly not trying to throw shade and if I pissed you off, that wasn't my intention. I really was just adding my two cents and making some general observations from my previous experiences. I'm guessing my tone was lost in translation.