On 2 Apr 2005 09:06:25 -0800, "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

>
>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> 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 don't know that anyone is as capable as me to speak for "Parg" unless
>Parg comes back to us.>



That might be regarded as yet one more slip-up on your part, Puke, in
a futile attempt to maintain a false dichotomy between the two of you.

What do you mean "unless Parg comes back to us"?  "Us"
as in you and
every other soc.men contributor?

"Hyerdahl" was never on soc.men at the same time that
"Parg" was - so
"comes back to us" makes no sense.  Parg could not possibly come back
to a newsgroup which included Hyerdahl (since Hyerdahl was never on
the scene at the same time that Parg was), unless, of course, the two
of you are one and the same, which you obviously are for a myriad of
other reasons.



>> > 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?
>>
>Military parity can be defined in many different ways, i.e. equal
>numbers of women and men in the military, 



Obviously, a draft of men and women could be used to accomplish this
end - yet you say that you are against such a draft.


>or equal numbers of women and
>men who want military jobs getting those jobs, etc.



In other words, you don't really have a definition of military parity.

You say that you don't want women to be drafted unless they have
military parity and you are keeping the definition of "military
parity" vague enough so that you can always say that it hasn't been
achieved.



>> >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?
>>
>I don't have just one defininition



because you want the definition to be kept as vague as possible.



>, but certainly those two I mention
>above are applicable to our discussion.



But you didn't SAY ANYTHING, Puke.



>>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.
>>
>That's very good.
>
> > >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?
>>
>Because they don't have equal military RIGHTS.



Which you can't define.  Apart from the "right" to participate
directly in combat (which "right" it seems many or most women in the
military don't want or seek), what "right" do women in the military
not have?

As T.R. Ellis once said, "You don't know, do you?"



> Drafting women to
>"these positions" would be akin to drafting black men when black men
>didn't have other military rights.  You can't have unequal duties that
>place you in harms way if you're not equally entitled to all the other
>goodies.


I'm afraid that you're making a false distinction, Puke.  Women
represent something in the neighborhood of 12 to 15 percent of total
forces and about 3 percent of casualties (i.e., female casualties are
disproportionately SMALL in comparison to their numbers in the
military population) - which means that pains are taken to PROTECT
them from harm (the same obviously cannot be said about black men in
the days of segregation)- so I don't think that you need worry about
women being placed in harm's way or being subject to the same risks
that black men were.



>> >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?
>>
>> Military parity cannot be acheived unless women cannot be excluded to
>any military class, office, training, etc, by virtue of them being
>female.



And you can't say where that exclusion has taken place.



>> >> 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've explained some ways above, where the military can achieve parity.


Well, I'm sorry to tell you that you haven't explained shit.


>There are probably other ways I've not included, but either of those
>two options above would satisfy me, personally.
>
>> 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.
>
>Well, the two definitions I offered above are two ways the military
>could show parity.  >



Buzz buzz.


>> >> 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.
>>
>I don't have to comment on that as I'm A-ok with the reader deciding
>what they will.
>:-)  IOW, I have no particular objection to people thinking I'm "Parg",
>and I definately have no objection to people thinking you're Dave Sim.



I myself don't like to gesture to the crowd because I myself don't
necessarily care what the crowd thinks.

But as long as YOU'RE gesturing to the crowd, you're just continuing
to shoot yourself in the foot.

Every informed contributor to soc.men regards (not as a guess, but as
a virtual certainty)  "Hyerdahl" and "Parg" as being
one and the same.

And NO ONE, including you, believes that a Canadian cartoonist named
"Dave Sim" is masquerading under five or six different screen names
(including my own), each of which has its own unique perspective,
personality, etc.



>:-)  :-) :-)  I admire what "Parg" has written, for the most part. :-)



I'm sure.  But why the quotation marks around her name?

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where the two of you differ - the
phrase "for the most part" indicates that you have a difference of
opinion with her on some things.



>>
>> >> 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.
>
>Then post it, as you did the Dave Sim cock puppet posts.  :-)



I DID post it.



>> >> 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?
>>
>> Actually, if you accepted that "Parg" and I were NOT the
"same
>person", it would likely show you to be a person who relied more on
>your own debate points and less on denigration, 



Denigration, what?

You said that you "admired" what Parg has written for the most part.

Why would you feel "denigrated" at being "mistaken" for her?




>and it might not have
>encouraged your current postion of exposure.  :-)  :-)  Again, I have
>absolutely no problem with you calling me by another's name; it just
>serves my purpose of showing your lack of debate ability.



This is not a high school debating class, and as far as I'm concerned,
it's the other way around.

If you are still maintaining the fiction that you and "Parg" are
different people, if you are still being untruthful on something as
basic as that, why should anything else that you might say on any
other subject matter be taken seriously?



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

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} 4/4/05 5:01:09 PM ---