Discussion in 'Community' started by Juliet316, Jan 23, 2013.
Hey, genius... she IS a woman.
you would lose miserably.... trust me on that one...
well than why is she so pissed of that in a situation of grave danger a man would put himself at risk and do the chivalrous thing to help save the life of her or others...
I just don't see how that is putting women back in the kitchen, not allowing them to speak at a dinner table...
there is no correlation between the two.. Most women would love that exact thing to happen, most women, well feminine ones still believe in chivalry.
You make a ridiculous amount of assumptions.
because I said anything near what youre claiming...
can I ask why your such a tool bag? honestly? why do you clearly post lies and misinformation? you know clear well I never said anything even close to that, so why continually lie and make yourself look cool to the 4 internet friends you have.
Sits back with popcorn...this is entertaining, most entertaining.
wait so youre gonna sit here and tell me most women wouldn't want a man to help defend them in a situation like a mugging, a store robbery.. You honestly believe most women wouldn't be down for that.
Wait... are you going to assume that I'm a man now?
This is a Senate thread, as noted by the tagging, and with that is the expectation of all posts in here "promoting the appropriate topic of discussion". And that means that the discussion should be about the topic at hand, not trying to attack or belittle other people in here. Anyone that wants to continue to use this to go on personal attacks will find that won't work too well, although I'd rather not to bring the 'ban' in the thread title back into the discussion quite so literally. I would also rather not have to lock this thread.
Lowbacca_1977 Edit: We're done here with this direction
Last non-Senate post in this thread, I promise:
Can we make this a JCC thread, instead?
I just sent Juliet a PM asking her to request it be changed...hopefully she'll do it.
I'd argue that it was never a Senate thread to begin with, going from the style of posting and from the fact that it's a thread about a news story, so I don't imagine that retagging will be an issue.
But let's ask the OP about that -- hey
@Juliet316 , would you prefer this thread as a Senate thread or JCC thread? Up to you, since you made it.
I'm currently working backwards through it, roughly, to track out as I got tipped off on it since I'm presently knee-deep in some school stuff. As it stands, it holds under Senate tagging, so Senate rules should be followed, but as Jello said, there's a strong basis for retagging it (or adjusting it as we did with a topic like last week), at which point, JCC rules take over.
just stop making senate threads, people. let the dream die
in the meantime hurf durf i think this is a good thing but im open to new ideas about women being inferior or whatever because i am following the rules of proper debate. the ad hominem attacks have been most distressing and i hope we, as a NATION, can move forward with the presidents agenda but also the republicans because i wouldnt want to seem biased. here is an article from nbcnews.com that i found MOST illuminating
en modus ponens, veritas est
all of a sudden juliet is nowhere to be found!
Honestly I was surprised it wasn't retagged as a JCC thread when the pictures started coming out (I admittedly was guilty of this too)
I tagged it as a Senate thread because I did want some sort of serious discussion on women being allowed in ground combat roles, especially the implications, real, or simply percieved in the minds of some as this policy change begins to take hold (especially with an incoming Defense Sect. who may or may not agree with what Panetta's done here); but if people feel it's better to retag it a JCC thread, I'll go along with it.
What exactly are you accusing Lowbacca of?
edit: Dammit Juliet
She discovered a rare album of Creed playing Dr Who music and has had a seizure of pure joy.
This shoul dbe a serious discussion but so long as you have one Community forum there'll be bleed over into the JCC stylings. It's not a bad thing but the Senate needs to relax a little as well.
Given the OP's intent to have serious chat about women in combat, and hopefully without 1940's sexism, can we start over? Pwease?
Seeing as this is currently a Senate thread, I have to say that this quote is fail enough to warrant an entire essay about how wrong it is. However, it also doesn't warrant any more consideration than an "lol."
The idea that apparently male soldiers are tough enough to go into battle but would be traumatized by having to be naked (while they're dirty, oh noes!) in front of women says a lot about the whole "manhood" argument. Pathetic.
I do actually think that there's some good potential from discussion, and besides that misogynist was bound to get stale sooner or later anyway. I tried to make a serious post back on page two about sex abuse in the military, but it got buried from all the lulz, which is fine
Juliet, I'm going to send you a PM as well about this in just a moment about a restart that would set this up for a more focused discussion along the lines of what you mentioned.
No, you're going to ruin everything!
Yeah, you would think that highly trained military personell would be capable of going into a shower with potentially somebody of the opposite sex without going 'OMG Boobies!"
But then again, replace "opposite sex" with "Gays" and this argument has been brought up before and has been shot down with the repeal of DADT.