Can you stick your feet out the bottom of the covers though? That's a deal breaker for me.

Obviously the hipster/feminist argument was a bit of a stretch, a figure of speech, and needs to be taken that way.
And back to the question "What should the Army do?" How about don't mix genders, and stop self inflicted wounds.
What would the army actually gain from conscripting female soldiers anyway? The sheer fact that they don't have the physical strength to defend themselves would be a deal breaker for anyone that needs muscles for the job, isn't it?
And please refrain yourselves from calling me names or vote me down as this won't achieve anything constructive. I'am very aware that this is a sensible subject, but please keep hotheaded reactions out of it.
Thanks.




Well, obviously you said something stupid, this is why people jumped down your throat.

Also, by the terms you used - "feminist, hipster and PC" - and the context in which you used them, readers on VS were able to figure out YOUR probable biases, which are part of the problem, in this case. If you really think VS comments are a step above the norm on the internet, it would behoove you to consider what is being said more seriously. At least, in your first comment, you said you could be wrong. Let me assure you, you are.

I think others have already said what should be done by the army in terms of reacting to these rapes. And, it would make a difference, at least to the women who are being raped, if a would-be repeat offender is locked up after being convicted of his first...or even second, rape.

There is a larger problem of how we deal with these sorts of problems in the military. And, while I think your take on what SHOULD be done is asinine, realistically, I think military leadership needs to be on the forefront of these changes. We may still be a few generations away from having military leadership with the balls and intelligence to help implement these kind of institutional changes, but if we want to continue having a military and be a free nation, it is vital.

As we continue in an attempt to treat all people equally, it would be a backwards step to segregate the military by gender...or for that matter, by sexuality or religion or any other potentially contentious trait. I remember making very similar arguments as you are making now in a debate class when I was in 8th grade. I assumed because I was stronger than any girl I knew, and most guys were, that it made sense that only men should be soldiers.

But, for as much as we glorify the military in America, it isn't made up by only the strongest citizens. In fact, the promise of our military is that it will remake that person into an honorable soldier. Now, maybe this is wishful thinking, but it is realistic at least in that it doesn't assume only the "best" (physically)folks will be volunteering. Also, we aren't using swords and battle axes. It doesn't necessarily matter as much now if you are the strongest. Indeed, with new technology (assuming we can continue to afford it) we'll need soldiers with the ability to learn and retain technical knowledge. So, yes there is a baseline physical level we want our soldiers to maintain, but no, the biological differences between men and women should not automatically exclude half of our population.

If you don't want people to call you names, don't be a misogynist. Rape in the military is a problem that should blamed on the rapist and the institution that allows it or covers it up. A woman who has been raped isn't the problem. Assuming she shouldn't be in that position if she can't defend herself from a fellow soldier is quite literary blaming the victim. Getting rid of women in the military won't solve the problem, it will only cover it up further as serial rapists can continue to rape women from other nations or, as is mentioned in the video, right here in America after they return home.

Finally, I'm sick of the terms "Hipster, Feminist and PC" all have been distorted beyond being valuable to anyone save when we are preaching to our respective choirs.

Feel free to call me names or downvote. I'll survive.

I really don't see how telling someone to stop raping will have any effect on anyone bent on doing it.
>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^cracanata:
It's OK I can take some criticism, but still the problem is right there. What would it be the solution? How should the military respond to this , female only army? Or just recruit only feminists and hipsters, that will defeat the purpose of having a strong army. In my opinion a strong army is made of strong individuals that most of the times are just the sort of individuals that have low respect for life otherwise will be a weak army. War isn't about feelings and fairness in my opinion.
If that makes me a lunatic that has no morals so be it. Still you'll have to remember that war is shit. And I'm not even defending war or advocating for rapists, only trying to make some sense with what the subject offers.

The solution? Simple.
Stop fucking raping people.
Not ok. At all. Ever. I don't give a shit who you are, where you are or what kind of stress you're under.
As to what the army should do? I'd start with locking the bastards up. If it happens on active duty, I'd charge them with treason.

I do agree the perpetrators should be judged for their actions.I see myself forced to include this statement as I see people jumped to wrong conclusions into judging my character, I've always regarded videosift as a better community when it comes to intelligent debates, and of course I still do. So, leaving out a statement like "I don't agree with rape" didn't meant "I support rape"
>> ^kymbos:

I don't know - a feminist and hipster army could be quite formidable. I'm glad we reached this level of intelligent debate about such a serious topic.
Meanwhile the Australian Defence Force has seen similar cultural resistance to dealing appropriately with sexual assault. We don't glorify our military quite as much as Americans, however.

Obviously the hipster/feminist argument was a bit of a stretch, a figure of speech, and needs to be taken that way.
And back to the question "What should the Army do?" How about don't mix genders, and stop self inflicted wounds.
What would the army actually gain from conscripting female soldiers anyway? The sheer fact that they don't have the physical strength to defend themselves would be a deal breaker for anyone that needs muscles for the job, isn't it?
And please refrain yourselves from calling me names or vote me down as this won't achieve anything constructive. I'am very aware that this is a sensible subject, but please keep hotheaded reactions out of it.
Thanks.

>> ^shuac:

Very nice and everything but hummingbirds sound like giant bees. That's a deal-breaker right there.


Have you tried earplugs? =oD

Very nice and everything but hummingbirds sound like giant bees. That's a deal-breaker right there.

One day I was just laying about and I saw on ESPN3 this thing called AFL. I had no idea what it was so I clicked on it to check it out. Mind...Fucking...Blown. I've been watching AFL for over a year now and I still don't have any idea what's going on. The refs blow the whistle constantly, as a soccer ref I keep wondering "Why isn't anyone stopping!?" I watch every game they put on ESPN3...sometimes twice. I ended up watching one Final twice but that was because they played it twice because they'res no such thing as a tie breaker...that was insane to me.

They can consider me an lifelong fan because I'll never get tired of watching this FUCKING Insane game. It's absolutely amazing.

Combo-Breaker!

It's somewhat fake. @1:25 you can see the the main firefighter has palmed a spring loaded hole punch window breaker. And @ :58 you can see in the top left corner of the broken window is a the hole he punched to weaken the integrity of the window. The tapping from the second firefight stressed it enough to fully break.

@Spacedog79

Indeed, this takes a different approach than a LFTR, I wasn't meaning to suggest this would solve a parallel set of problems. And I don't know if the complexity of it should be a deal breaker right away, look at combustion engines, Diesel is by far simpler than Gasoline engines, however both have their uses; complexity alone can't be the deciding factor.

Also, from my understanding...and let me point out again that I am no expert, but it seemed that while they are indeed firing protons, they are firing them at a heavy metal, and through the spallation effect, producing a beam of neutrons (or that is the plan, they currently are just beaming electrons I believe). Either way, it is a complex way to go about fission; but very much like Gas Vs Diesel with the lack of a perfectly sustained reactor (Uranium or Thorium) of perfect ability, research in this quasi-dieselesk solution might not be a terrible waste of time and money.

There is also a "problem" of using the fissile we have today, as far as I understand it. As they are mixed with many other undesirable fissile and non-fissile fission products in a chemical stew. So to use that, you would need a secure, safe, and practical way to go about reconditioning and reconstituting it in a form you could use. Once again, not a deal breaker for that to happen either, but you have to keep your mind and options open for good technologies that offer a different game plan. Ultimately, I think a critical reactor is the way you want to go if you can get the engineering and physics behind you, if not, or in certain situations, perhaps sub-critical will offer some unique solutions.

Thanks for the well wishes, apparently, one of the better nuclear schools is in my state...score! And one of the others is near my family...double score!

@EMPIRE

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, Dummkopf.

Like you aren't a "law-breaker" on a daily basis. Yo, Empire. Have you ever driven your car at 56 or above in a 55mph zone?

Well then obviously you're a criminal. And we all know that All Criminals deserve PRISON and harsh treatment.

Do you have ANY idea now many puppies and old ladies you could have murdered with your vehicle?

In fact.. where do you live? Hello 911? I need to report a crazy wreckless LAW BREAKING-- should I continue or have I made my point?

Oh, so they're supposed to only do their job where it's convenient for the law-breakers? Get real.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Psh, yeah. Just like the TSA is simply trying to keep the skies clear of "terrorists".
Stop deluding yourself.
If the point is to prevent drunk drivers, why aren't those officer stationed outside local bars calling taxis for anyone who is clearly intoxicated?
>> ^EMPIRE:
They were just trying to keep the road clean of drunk drivers.

Fixed

In reply to this comment by nanrod:
I can't see the video - it's private.

Some reporters can have a career-defining epiphany on their own, others must have it forced upon them.

BTW, min wage laws hurt those who most need a wage. It is really hard to get a job as a used up drug addict. A church I used to be a part of as a Christian tried at length to get the homeless into decent jobs, but when you don't have the faculties anymore, it is hard to get a job where you are worth 7.50 an hour. And while we never ended up facing this issue, because we stopped trying because of legal reason, we tried to do this kind of subcontracting where we would hire ourselves to clean local businesses restrooms for real cheap, "hire out" some help being burned out street people, then pay them the full amount we contracted ourselves for. It was a legal nightmare because of the min wage laws preventing us from doing it. In the end, it was a job that could of been done for money, but in the end, we had to just give them money. In other words, there are many jobs that could be done by the neediest of people who don't have the mental gusto to be deserving of a full wage job. In the end, it ends up forcing a charity gap, where people that don't have skills merit a wage of whatever the min wage is to rely on charity of some sort.

In this, we make law breakers out of them. The man that offers to wash your window for a buck or whathaveyou isn't really complying with min wage laws exactly. That doesn't matter when it is just a car driver handing out money, but when a business can't hire some street folks to make regular cleaning of their outside patio area, then something has broken. Even if I could be convinced that we need a min wage, the way it is setup atm is to "help" middle/lower middle class people at the expense of the most poor. Implementation is very important, almost more important that the act itself. Any act that explicitly raises unemployment for the poorest of the poor is explicitly bad in my opinion.

As a side note, even when I was an unskilled worker...a high school student, I have always made a wage greater than min wage, even when working in fast food. Think about your own wage history, have you ever made the actual lowest wage? If not, then think about the skill set of a person that makes it, and then think of the person that exists below it. The person that exist below the min wage is the person that is most afflicted with the negative this life has to offer, and is also rejected from employment opportunities. I can not morally and rationally support min wage laws as they exist today, I have dealt to much with the pain of rebuilding a life of work and happiness that hedges against the laws. Any law that makes flat out charity the ONLY means of rebuilding your life is morally objectionable.