re: OT ladies and parents, how do you feel about women being drafted

You're the dim one. The first two words in the message were FOR COMBAT. You obviously can't or don't read. And, your original post absolutely indicated women could/should be in non-combat positions. Again, you can't/don't read well because the Senate and the SOC recently stated in no uncertain terms that women will be drafted and used in combat. English is your friend.

quote:

---

women born on or after January 1, 2018

---

What??? So it's not going to affect any body until 2036? How progressive.

quote:

---

You obviously can't or don't read.

---

I explained to you that not everyone reads the OP if the title appears to stand on its own.

quote:

---

And, your original post absolutely indicated women could/should be in non-combat positions.

---

I've already explained my position here, and I later clarified how I felt in response to you pointing out that there was a bit more detail to the original question.

quote:

---

Again, you can't/don't read well because the Senate and the SOC recently stated in no uncertain terms that women will be drafted and used in combat. English is your friend.

---

Well, then why did you ask for an opinion? Just because they ruled a certain way means I have to 100% agree with it? Are you retarded or do you just not understand how to have a discussion?

Again, learn how to start a thread. It's not too late to edit your title.

Equality.



And females of all other species pull their weight in battle. Don't see why ours should be excluded if it became necessary.

quote:

---

If you are too lazy

---

It's a message board with hundreds of posts. To cover a lot of ground on here takes efficiency. This is why when posters write long drawn out stories you see a lot of TLDR responses.

You keep bringing the ad hominem attack because you are too dense to understand that my explanation boils down to women in combat should not be a black and white issue. That's simply an opinion, which you asked for, and doesn't need to be based on current policy.

It's really sad that you are quick to label me instead of hearing what I have to say and offer a counterpoint. That's how you have a discussion, but alas you are only able to see red at the moment.

quote:

---

Your attempt to turn it into "women can weasel out and choose not to fight" is your own somewhat delusional thread which flies in the face of the Senate, SOC, and the liberal/pinko agenda.

---

Are you attempting to quote me here, or is this your poor interpretation of my argument? Women can and do serve in combat, however I do not agree with lowering physical standards for infantry and other physically demanding roles. That's why I pointed out that there are plenty of other ways for women to serve.

quote:

---

Don't use a cliff hanger title. It's in the Guidelines for a reason.

---

This


OP could have easily have just said "How do you feel about women being drafted in combat?" in the title.

I don't think anyone should be drafted.

if you are going to have a draft, no exemptions for the scions of wealth.

You could have easily read the first two words of the message, too. You are both blaming others for your laziness.

quote:

---

Is this true or relevant now that the Senate has voted to draft women...

---

You asked for an opinion:

quote:

---

how do you feel about women being drafted

---

quote:

---

Important: Don't force readers to have to click the thread to know what it is about

---

quote:

---

2. The subject of the thread is cut off. This is a problem that has been popping up a lot lately. A user will post a subject such as:

"The key to winning the game is..."

or

"I am about to get torn to shreds but I think that"

For whatever reasons, the user cut the subject off and is requiring that the reader click on the thread to find out what the point of the thread is. We would rather the main idea of the thread to be inside the subject

---

Right from Chicken himself


LINK