On 2 Apr 2005 07:58:41 -0800, "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

>
>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> On 1 Apr 2005 15:11:05 -0800, "Hyerdahl"
 wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Society wrote:
>> >>  wrote in message
>> >> news:1112231042.944302.187070{at}z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >(edit)
>> >> >
>> >There is no real reason for women to comment on the draft, because,
>> >where women have uequal rights they will also have unequal duties.
>If
>> >men want women to be drafted, they will have to open up all military
>> >options TO women.
>>
>> But Puke, on December 27, 2001, at 3:52:31 GMT (still December 26 on
>> the Pacific Coast), you BOASTED about how women were taking more and
>> more "men's only" jobs in the military and how they were
doing this
>on
>> a daily basis.
>
>You seem to be combining my words above with some named Parg, but
>that's ok;



Of course it's OK.

Who is more qualified than you to speak for "Parg"?




> I'll comment anyway.  



Good idea.  FORCE yourself.



>Having women doing more and more of
>mens job is not the same as military parity.



Then why don't you define "military parity"?  What could it POSSIBLY
mean, other than that?



>That being the case, it is quite easy to say that more and more jobs
>are going to women AND that military parity has not yet been acquired.


What is your definition of military parity?



>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.men/msg/0d7dfc16f8de5fad?dmode=source
>>
>> You said, "This man's army is no longer for men alone.  .  
>> Every day that passes finds more of those "male only"
jobs going to
>> women."
>>
>Well, Parg said that, 



I know; I know.  "You" didn't say that.  "Parg" did.  I
know; I know.



>and it would seem to be true.  See below:
>
>"But it wasn't until 1994 when the risk rule was rescinded, that women
>were allowed to take jobs that put them in the direct line of fire.
>That opened up 260,000 new jobs, so that today, the only positions
>still off limits to women are in the infantry, Special Operation
>Forces, and on submarines."



And so why should women not be drafted for these positions?



>http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2226/context/cover/
>
>> In other words, you were BOASTING that these military options WERE
>> opening up and that they were continuing to open up "every
day".  And
>> that was over 39 months ago.
>
>Parg did seem to be posting that, and it does seem to hold true.  More
>and more women seem to be doing more and more military jobs.



So where has "military parity" not been achieved?



>> So if military options were opening up for women on a DAILY BASIS on
>> December 27, 2001, which is what you said at the time, surely all of
>> them have been opened up by now in April 2005.
>
>Not really.  You show a gaping lapse in logic, dear.  If I give one
>woman each day a new position previously occupied by men, that would
>not necessarily result in equity.


But you are obviously describing trends, not just "one a day" and you
just said that 260,000 new jobs opened up - so what exactly is your
definition of "military parity" and where has it not been achieved?

I don't even think that you know.  I think that you are scrambling to
come up with a workable definition as you read this right now.



>> Interestingly enough, at 17:17:44 GMT on the same day, T.R. Ellis
>> responded.
>
>TR Ellis and Grizz are both Dave Sim cockpuppets, dear.



Given the obvious futility of your attempt to establish a
Parg/Hyerdahl dichotomy in this post, I don't think that you're in a
position to comment on that.



>> But in order to try to score a rhetorical victory against PKrause on
>> December 27, 2001, you said, in effect, that women had ALREADY
>> achieved parity in the military.
>
>No, I never did, and having read some of Parg's posts, neither did
>he/she.



Yes, you/he/she/it did.





>> Yet in April 2005, you maintain that women SHOULDN'T be drafted
>> because they have NOT achieved parity.
>
>Women have NOT achieved military parity, and more and more military
>jobs today are being done by women.  I wonder why Dave Sim and his cock
>puppets can use no logic.


If I believed that you and "Parg" were NOT one and the same person,
then that would REALLY demonstrate an absence of logical faculties on
my part, wouldn't it?



------------------------------------

grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's
player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
    - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004


"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as
their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their
soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and
presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the
counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. 
Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be
placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must
be without.  It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men
of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their
fetters."
     
     - Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/2/05 12:48:18 PM ---