Pregnant?! Not in the army you don't bub!
- Thread starter @Li3n
- Start date
- Status
A
Armadillo
"We're no different from animals" is just another way of saying, "I don't think people should be expected to have any self-control whatsoever."
I feel the same way about this that I do about teenage pregnancy: it's really not that hard to avoid either knocking someone up or getting knocked up.
I feel the same way about this that I do about teenage pregnancy: it's really not that hard to avoid either knocking someone up or getting knocked up.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
I understand what you actually want to say, but that part could be a bit clear, outside the context it doesn't make sense
---------- Post added at 07:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------
you are evil.
and I love it.
P
Philosopher B.
Yeah. What he said. I don't have a problem with this.
That's because you have a skewed idea of how animals behave.
Statistics say it is...
S
Soliloquy
He said while sitting at his mass-manufactured desk inside his gas-heated home, pressing buttons on a device of extraordinary complexity that was conceived of, in its entirety, by the human mind. Slowly, he sips some coffee that was transported to his city from across the world via a giant mechanical flying machine, the drink's heat held in by an artificial polystyrene foam that will last for 500 years after he tosses it casually in the garbage.
"Yes, we're not very different from animals," he said. "Not very different at all."[/QUOTE]
Ha... i don't drink coffee.
But sure, keep telling yourself that tool use and nest building = overcoming your genetic programming (i did say instincts was too weak a word).[/QUOTE]
All right, let's use some more relevant examples.
Have you ever seen any other animal give itself a self-imposed limitation on eating the fatty foods that it's genetic programming is designed to have it seek out? Have you ever seen any other animal practice abstinence, despite their desire to do otherwise? Do you know of any other animal that engages in diplomacy instead of fighting its rivals?
Remember: the phrase "self control" was invented because it describes something that actually exists.
No, never seen any lean animals that had access to all the food they wanted, or any animals that instead of actual fighting just have one give in after a show of fangs etc.
I'll give you the abstinence thing, although there are animals that are fully monogamous and won't do it with anyone but their chosen partner, even if the partner is dead (very few).
I'll give you the abstinence thing, although there are animals that are fully monogamous and won't do it with anyone but their chosen partner, even if the partner is dead (very few).
S
Soliloquy
I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic here... Though I would at least say that there's more to diplomacy than being threatened and giving in, and that lean household pets have their diets regulated by a human.
It's important for me to be clear on this, though: I'm not saying that humans' behavior doesn't have similarities to other animals' behaviors. What I am saying is that human behavior has evolved so far beyond animal behavior (supercomputers instead of sticks, etc.) that they're only really comparable on a base level, like how a mountain is comparable to a rock.
Well, at least we've come to some sort of quasi-agreement. Instead of, you know, fighting it out.
C
Chibibar
well we have seen (post and videos) of squids using ARMOR
Sharks are notoriously picky eater (selection of food? since they are the top food chain in the ocean)
Sharks are notoriously picky eater (selection of food? since they are the top food chain in the ocean)
Actually, Sharks will eat just about anything because of their poor eyesight. They've found sharks with metal armor, luggage, and UNEXPLODED BOMBS in their stomachs.
Actually, Sharks will eat just about anything because of their poor eyesight. They've found sharks with metal armor, luggage, and UNEXPLODED BOMBS in their stomachs.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, sharks are more in the "when in doubt, EAT THAT SHIT!" school of thought.
C
Chibibar
Actually, Sharks will eat just about anything because of their poor eyesight. They've found sharks with metal armor, luggage, and UNEXPLODED BOMBS in their stomachs.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, sharks are more in the "when in doubt, EAT THAT SHIT!" school of thought.[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected
but the octopi!!!
K
Kitty Sinatra
would one individual tiger shark who's a picky eater blow your argument out of the water?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-outthere11-2009aug11,0,2353549.story
Also, I think chibbs was probably thinking about some recent research that suggests great whites are picky. I saw an article about that while googling up this shit. It's apparently tiger sharks that eat anything, not great whites; plus there are plenty of other varieties of shark, not all of them (if any of them) will eat like tiger sharks tend to . . . especially as not all tiger sharks even do
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-outthere11-2009aug11,0,2353549.story
Also, I think chibbs was probably thinking about some recent research that suggests great whites are picky. I saw an article about that while googling up this shit. It's apparently tiger sharks that eat anything, not great whites; plus there are plenty of other varieties of shark, not all of them (if any of them) will eat like tiger sharks tend to . . . especially as not all tiger sharks even do
C
Chibibar
hehe.. thankswould one individual tiger shark who's a picky eater blow your argument out of the water?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-outthere11-2009aug11,0,2353549.story
Also, I think chibbs was probably thinking about some recent research that suggests great whites are picky. I saw an article about that while googling up this shit. It's apparently tiger sharks that eat anything, not great whites; plus there are plenty of other varieties of shark, not all of them (if any of them) will eat like tiger sharks tend to . . . especially as not all tiger sharks even do
my wife is a shark nut. I saw clips here and there of all the shark stuff (movies, documentary, videos etc etc) so I only pick up a snippet here and there. That is why I post what I posted.
A
Armadillo
That's because you have a skewed idea of how animals behave.[/quote]
I do? Base instinct tends to be the course of action for animals, something that humans are quite capable of overcoming.
Statistics say it is...[/QUOTE]
OK, how is it hard to avoid knocking someone up/becoming knocked up? I'm talking about in the normal course of human activity, not horrific circumstances like rape or other abuse. I'm not a supporter of abstinence-only education, but it IS the only 100%, sure-fire way to avoid pregnancy. If you desperately don't want to get pregnant, if getting pregnant will RUIN EVERYTHING, then you have one option to be sure. That's how it is.
Pfft, try telling that to Mary.
C
Chibibar
also.. there are those sperm whiskers.... not 100%
A
Armadillo
Pfft, try telling that to Mary.[/QUOTE]
Well, there's ALWAYS an exception. I'd even extend that protection to Zeus' illegitimate conquests.
K
Kitty Sinatra
hehe.. thankswould one individual tiger shark who's a picky eater blow your argument out of the water?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-outthere11-2009aug11,0,2353549.story
Also, I think chibbs was probably thinking about some recent research that suggests great whites are picky. I saw an article about that while googling up this shit. It's apparently tiger sharks that eat anything, not great whites; plus there are plenty of other varieties of shark, not all of them (if any of them) will eat like tiger sharks tend to . . . especially as not all tiger sharks even do
my wife is a shark nut. I saw clips here and there of all the shark stuff (movies, documentary, videos etc etc) so I only pick up a snippet here and there. That is why I post what I posted.[/QUOTE]
Well you gave into them so readily when all they did was say "sharks eat anything" that I had to do at least a cursory search to see what was up. That brief search suggests that you were more on the side of right, that given the right circumstances even an eating machine can be finicky.
Mind y'all, I'm of the opinion that we really are nothing but animals, that we live and are guided by our "base instincts" as much as any other critter, we just don't acknowledge it because we like to believe our intelligence puts us above it; I don't see how that's reasonable, though, when our intelligence itself is part of our animal nature, not above it.
Yeah, i said instincts is not the best word as it has the wrong association.
I meant that self-control is also a natural response to danger etc. and animals also have it, even if it's not as obvious as in humans.
Sure, but how many actually do that...
Simple examples mean i don't have to look stuff up. There are plenty of more complex behaviours in the animal world regarding conflicts between individuals.
And you think lean animals = humans not giving them more food i don't think you ever had a pet...
K
Kitty Sinatra
Yeah, cats control their own diet. Most cats anyway. Nearly every cat I've known at least. I had one cat, Sly, who makes a perfect example. For most of her life, we simply kept her bowl filled with dry food. She ate as much as she wanted, whenever she wanted. We had no input in that decision.
Indeed, she pestered us to no end if she could even see the bottom of the bowl. The only way to get her to leave us alone was to go fill it up. And after doing so, she wouldn't even eat. It just calmed her worry over running out of food.
She was a healthy cat and not fat.
This all changed when she hit old age, though. We had to regulate her food then, otherwise she would just eat and eat and eat. It very much seemed like she lost her self control at that point.
And as I'm typing this, I'm recalling my late great grandmother. In her final years, she too lost her self control when it came to food. She ate so many sweet; would just down them one after another when before she barely touched the stuff, just ate enough to enjoy the taste.
Just with this one example - and comparison with a person - I would be unable to say that cats don't have self control. And unable to think that cats are anything special, I'd extend this observation to all mammals by default and even other animals with the barest intelligence.
And I come back to my most basic thought on this topic: Humans are very much the same as animals.
Indeed, she pestered us to no end if she could even see the bottom of the bowl. The only way to get her to leave us alone was to go fill it up. And after doing so, she wouldn't even eat. It just calmed her worry over running out of food.
She was a healthy cat and not fat.
This all changed when she hit old age, though. We had to regulate her food then, otherwise she would just eat and eat and eat. It very much seemed like she lost her self control at that point.
And as I'm typing this, I'm recalling my late great grandmother. In her final years, she too lost her self control when it came to food. She ate so many sweet; would just down them one after another when before she barely touched the stuff, just ate enough to enjoy the taste.
Just with this one example - and comparison with a person - I would be unable to say that cats don't have self control. And unable to think that cats are anything special, I'd extend this observation to all mammals by default and even other animals with the barest intelligence.
And I come back to my most basic thought on this topic: Humans are very much the same as animals.
I don't see the problem, sex isn't limited to vaginal intercourse. Soldiers have plenty of alternatives.
Besides, they signed up to give their body and skill to the selected country, there's plenty of shittier sides to being a soldier than this, and plenty of situations where soldiers can get themselves into if they don't show proper constraints (o hai death/crippling/POW/etc).
Besides, they signed up to give their body and skill to the selected country, there's plenty of shittier sides to being a soldier than this, and plenty of situations where soldiers can get themselves into if they don't show proper constraints (o hai death/crippling/POW/etc).
A
Armadillo
Sure, but how many actually do that...[/quote]
Every choice comes with risks and benefits. Part of being human beings is using our evolved brains to make the decisions we feel are in our best interests while mitigating the risks associated with our actions. Yes, sex is awesome, but the risks involved are huge, even more so in the military. In addition to the standard pregnancy/STD risk, they have the risk of punishment from their employer. After running all of that through the ol' brain, if you decide that the risks of having sex are worth the pleasure, then knock yourself out. Just don't bitch and moan if it comes back to bite you in the ass.
C
Chibibar
Sure, but how many actually do that...[/quote]
Every choice comes with risks and benefits. Part of being human beings is using our evolved brains to make the decisions we feel are in our best interests while mitigating the risks associated with our actions. Yes, sex is awesome, but the risks involved are huge, even more so in the military. In addition to the standard pregnancy/STD risk, they have the risk of punishment from their employer. After running all of that through the ol' brain, if you decide that the risks of having sex are worth the pleasure, then knock yourself out. Just don't bitch and moan if it comes back to bite you in the ass.[/QUOTE]
yea. but not having sex for like a year (depending on your tour I guess and allow/ability to come home) and be with the person you LOVE and married to and have no sex..... that is tough.
C
Chibibar
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091223/ts_nm/us_iraq_pregnancy;_ylt=Ake8_1Z6o5feqUaS2LgyhlF0fNdF
updated. So.......... he is NOT planning to court martial pregnant people or send them to jail, BUT still keep the policy in place? so I guess other Officers can still enact on this rule.
updated. So.......... he is NOT planning to court martial pregnant people or send them to jail, BUT still keep the policy in place? so I guess other Officers can still enact on this rule.
K
Kitty Sinatra
As I read the article, you got it. His rule allows the lesser punishment of reprimand, which is what he plans to use . . . though the option of a court martial still stands, presumably for what's deemed a more heinous breach of his rule (having twins? lol. But no, likely if it's found that someone got willfully pregnant to get out of duty, or something like that).
It seems the "no change" mentioned in the article means that he's not backing down on his rules.
Also: Yay. That article was kind of enlightening on the flexibility of the commander to modify (and even create?) rules/laws for his subordinates to follow. It sort of answered my earlier questions from this thread.
It seems the "no change" mentioned in the article means that he's not backing down on his rules.
Also: Yay. That article was kind of enlightening on the flexibility of the commander to modify (and even create?) rules/laws for his subordinates to follow. It sort of answered my earlier questions from this thread.
A
Armadillo
Sure, but how many actually do that...[/quote]
Every choice comes with risks and benefits. Part of being human beings is using our evolved brains to make the decisions we feel are in our best interests while mitigating the risks associated with our actions. Yes, sex is awesome, but the risks involved are huge, even more so in the military. In addition to the standard pregnancy/STD risk, they have the risk of punishment from their employer. After running all of that through the ol' brain, if you decide that the risks of having sex are worth the pleasure, then knock yourself out. Just don't bitch and moan if it comes back to bite you in the ass.[/QUOTE]
yea. but not having sex for like a year (depending on your tour I guess and allow/ability to come home) and be with the person you LOVE and married to and have no sex..... that is tough.[/QUOTE]
Yes it is. My point still stands, though. They have a decision to make: have sex and run the risk of getting their wife pregnant, or abstain and make absolutely sure she can't get pregnant. It's far from an easy choice, and I don't envy those who have to make it, but the choice is still theirs and theirs alone.
C
Chibibar
Of course it is their choice, but I think that is asking a lot more. There are rare cases that it could be their only son to pass on the family line. So no kids (due to war) could essentially kill that family line (only child etc etc) each family don't have a brood anymore. Most usually have 1-2 kids if any and maybe both serve in the military have have an equal chance of getting killed.
So I guess new service from the government.
Sperm/Egg bank
Contraceptive (if needed)
Surgery (for those who don't want kids anymore)
Of course it is their choice, but I think that is asking a lot more. There are rare cases that it could be their only son to pass on the family line. So no kids (due to war) could essentially kill that family line (only child etc etc) each family don't have a brood anymore. Most usually have 1-2 kids if any and maybe both serve in the military have have an equal chance of getting killed.
So I guess new service from the government.
Sperm/Egg bank
Contraceptive (if needed)
Surgery (for those who don't want kids anymore)[/QUOTE]
Except that passing on the family line isn't exactly a huge fucking deal in the US. In fact, it's not exactly uncommon for wives to keep their maiden names or for husbands to take their wives' names. No offense, but your rationale is very chauvinistic and out of date, Chibi.
C
Chibibar
Of course it is their choice, but I think that is asking a lot more. There are rare cases that it could be their only son to pass on the family line. So no kids (due to war) could essentially kill that family line (only child etc etc) each family don't have a brood anymore. Most usually have 1-2 kids if any and maybe both serve in the military have have an equal chance of getting killed.
So I guess new service from the government.
Sperm/Egg bank
Contraceptive (if needed)
Surgery (for those who don't want kids anymore)[/QUOTE]
Except that passing on the family line isn't exactly a huge fucking deal in the US. In fact, it's not exactly uncommon for wives to keep their maiden names or for husbands to take their wives' names. No offense, but your rationale is very chauvinistic and out of date, Chibi.[/QUOTE]
note I said sperm AND EGG bank. which mean from either line male AND female. So it is possible a family line (regardless which side) could be terminated.
edit: to me, bloodline can come from either side. Granted the "traditional" line would be from male heirs, but I consider both side of the family since both side history is important, but like I said, it is a rare cases and I'm showing extreme. The original premise was posted to show "far extreme" cases that could possibly happen in this scenario. Remember that male and female serve in the military, but what if all the children serve and died (it is possible even a fictional movie Saving Private Ryan was about a family of losing all member except one) so you could have your wife died and her family line died with it.
K
Kitty Sinatra
I'm not sure you and Chibs on the same page here. It seems like Chibs is talking about the genetic line, not the family name.
C
Chibibar
I'm not sure you and Chibs on the same page here. It seems like Chibs is talking about the genetic line, not the family name.[/QUOTE]
Heh, yea. That is what I was going for (even add edit part of my post) hence I put down egg and sperm. I figure it was enough, but I presume and that is my mistake.
I'll try to be fully clear in all aspect (I'll try not meaning that I will always) in my posts, but that would make many of my post long and well.... boring
all better...
- Status