[Rian]

So you disagree with the statement that minors magically become well informed, responsible adults when they turn 18? Would you agree that some legal adults are actually not responsible enough to vote properly? Would you agree that some minors are more responsible in this regards than legal adults? If you said no to either of the latter two questions, then your answer to the first must be no. And it would be more feasible to have some kind of test or essay requirement to vote than it would be to, say, have a test to get a driver's license.

Even if just one minor was more responsible in this regards than someone that's allowed to vote, then something should be done to get him/her to vote. Unless you guys aren't keen on protecting the rights of the minority. And seeing as how everyone really stops caring when they turn 18, that's true in this case.

Propose a practicable alternative to the current age-based cutoff and your argument may be taken more seriously.

[Scotty]

Propose a practicable alternative to the current age-based cutoff and your argument may be taken more seriously.

And it would be more feasible to have some kind of test or essay requirement to vote than it would be to, say, have a test to get a driver's license.

Just to reinforce, tests for driver's licenses are a practical (and widely used) alternative to getting the magical ability to drive a car at age 16 (or whatever age it is where you live).

[Polpolion]

So you disagree with the statement that minors magically become well informed, responsible adults when they turn 18? Would you agree that some legal adults are actually not responsible enough to vote properly? Would you agree that some minors are more responsible in this regards than legal adults? If you said no to either of the latter two questions, then your answer to the first must be no. And it would be more feasible to have some kind of test or essay requirement to vote than it would be to, say, have a test to get a driver's license.

Even if just one minor was more responsible in this regards than someone that's allowed to vote, then something should be done to get him/her to vote. Unless you guys aren't keen on protecting the rights of the minority. And seeing as how everyone really stops caring when they turn 18, that's true in this case.

Propose a practicable alternative to the current age-based cutoff and your argument may be taken more seriously.

Have people write an essay during registration about what influences their political views (not what their views are). It will become pretty obvious who's prepared to vote and who's not.

[General Battuta]

That just exacerbates class and race discrimination and makes the problem worse. It also disenfranchises people and removes the fundamental rights of democracy.

While it's a bit silly to have an arbitrary cutoff I don't see any better alternative.

Besides, most of your argument is about how you (at 17) can't do things you'll be able to do once 18.

[Rian]

Consider this: in less than a year, you will be entitled to the full rights and responsibilities of an adult, barring a few outliers (drinking, running for president.)

Your female peers? Will have the same legal rights, but in practice they’ll probably still be treated like children. Passed up for positions of responsibility at work, paid less, and (back on topic!) assumed to be the wives or girlfriends of soldiers rather than soldiers in their own right.

[Polpolion]

That just exacerbates class and race discrimination and makes the problem worse. It also disenfranchises people and removes the fundamental rights of democracy.

It disenfranchises them just as much as people being too poor to buy a car they just earned a license to use. What you propose here is a case against the current unequal system of education and bias in essay prompt and review, not a case against this essay as a method to determine whether or not someone cares about voting.

While it's a bit silly to have an arbitrary cutoff I don't see any better alternative.

Which doesn't mean that there isn't one (momentarily ignoring the afore mentioned idea for sake of argument), and it isn't an excuse to not look for one. Granted, I don't honestly expect you to go around thinking about this all the time, but just acknowledge that there's probably a better way. Besides, I'd rather having voting rights be distributed in a manner that discriminates based on interest in subject as opposed to discriminating on age.

Besides, most of your argument is about how you (at 17) can't do things you'll be able to do once 18.

My argument isn't about me individually. Blackhole was right, I can just wait the five months until I turn 18. It's not really that big of a deal; there aren't even any major elections from here on out. But there are people that this would affect. And heck, I might not be qualified to vote myself. But denying my point simply because I'm turning 18 in April simply shows you ignoring the millions of other minors in America, and the unknown quantity that should be allowed to vote.

Consider this: in less than a year, you will be entitled to the full rights and responsibilities of an adult, barring a few outliers (drinking, running for president.)

Your female peers? Will have the same legal rights, but in practice they’ll probably still be treated like children. Passed up for positions of responsibility at work, paid less, and (back on topic!) assumed to be the wives or girlfriends of soldiers rather than soldiers in their own right.

That's quite an eloquent way of putting this thread back on topic. 

[Uchuujinsan]

Some of this stuff is pretty disgusting: statements like 'she rode along with convoys' being interpreted as 'she sat in the back seat', rather than 'she provided overwatch from a Mark 19'.

Because we are back on topic...

"It would say like, 'the patient rode along on convoys,' like I was just a passenger in the back seat," McNeill said.

Whatever she originally said wasn't mentioned, it was interpreted as "the patient rode along on convoys".

[General Battuta]

That is indeed a factual statement.

And yet she clearly implies that she did not sit in the back seat.

Furthermore, women are explicitly said to serve as gunners on convoys in the article.

We have no reason to believe she was a gunner on a convoy. However, it seems likely.

[Uchuujinsan]

And yet she clearly implies that she did not sit in the back seat.

Who claimed that she sat in the backseat except herself? Where?
[edit]
Don't misunderstand that "except herself" - she said, that it sounded like it was that way, those words don't come from anyone else.

[StarSlayer]

And yet she clearly implies that she did not sit in the back seat.

Who claimed that she sat in the backseat except herself? Where?
[edit]
Don't misunderstand that "except herself" - she said, that it sounded like it was that way, those words don't come from anyone else.

There is a lot more to conversation then what is explicitly said.  She's probably perceptive enough to pick up the cues from body language, tone, infection etc, it's not always whats said but how its said.  I suppose she could be paranoid, but I'm willing to bet her intuition is correct, especially since the article indicates this is a systemic problem not just some random case.

[Uchuujinsan]

My criticism wasn't whether she was right or wrong, my critcism is that no one misinterpreted "the patient rode along with convoys" as "she sat in the back seat" (again, except maybe herself), like GB said in his first post.

[NGTM-1R]

Perhaps it's just me, but I sort of assume you were either driving or in a gunner posistion if you were with a convoy consistantly. There just isn't room to be a regular ridealong. Not to mention you'd be crazy to be a ridealong for the hell of it. The VA people would be aware of these things from their other patients. So I don't see how the "rode along with the convoys" statement, in the particular context it was made, is remotely disrespectful.

Without comparison to statements about a male in a similar situation, none of that particular complaint carries any meaning. The rest of the article supports its assertions well, however.

[General Battuta]

My criticism wasn't whether she was right or wrong, my critcism is that no one misinterpreted "the patient rode along with convoys" as "she sat in the back seat" (again, except maybe herself), like GB said in his first post.

"It would say like, 'the patient rode along on convoys,' like I was just a passenger in the back seat," McNeill said.

There is a lot more to conversation then what is explicitly said.  She's probably perceptive enough to pick up the cues from body language, tone, infection etc, it's not always whats said but how its said.  I suppose she could be paranoid, but I'm willing to bet her intuition is correct, especially since the article indicates this is a systemic problem not just some random case.

Either you agree with StarSlayer or you suggest it's all in her head. Go ahead, suggest that.

[iamzack]

Whenever people notice my mum's USMC stuff they go "so your husband is a marine?"

[NGTM-1R]

Already done, Battuta.

[Nuke]

for the record, i think soldier chicks are hawt, and they like to be on top

[General Battuta]

Already done, Battuta.

I'm giving him the chance to redeem himself.

[NGTM-1R]

I'm giving him the chance to redeem himself.

*cough* He's just going to fall back on my analysis, double or nothing.

[Uchuujinsan]

My criticism wasn't whether she was right or wrong, my critcism is that no one misinterpreted "the patient rode along with convoys" as "she sat in the back seat" (again, except maybe herself), like GB said in his first post.

"It would say like, 'the patient rode along on convoys,' like I was just a passenger in the back seat," McNeill said.

[General Battuta]

Grow a pair and say what you're implying.

Seriously, I have this little patience for people who perpetuate issues like this. Doubly so because you're, so far as I know, a civilian, and impugning the word of a combat-tested veteran.

If you think it's all in her head, go ahead. Tell me that your close reading of one sentence from the article suggests she's making it all up. Got no grounds for complaint. That she was never dismissed as a convoy noncombatant.

It's your shaky analysis against her first-hand analysis and she had a hell of a lot more at stake. The best reason you have to mistrust her is if you think she has an agenda. If you want to divorce yourself from that belief, you should do so now.