[wrg]

You're not reading it right. Women not having kids because they are making Excels/working in assorted minwage jobs directly translates into less kids being born which then translates into less potential soldiers. It's not difficult.

[refulgentis]

It was difficult enough that you were downvoted to gray, and rather than just shrugging and moving on, I assumed the best.

I also was perfectly polite in my post.

It wouldn't have been difficult for you to do the same.

To be clear, you are claiming it is time to roll back woman's rights (the right to work) so they maintain the same army size.

May I be bold, and make a conjecture?

You are aware this argument is unjustifiable and people react as such, otherwise, you wouldn't be rolling out your 9 year old anon account to do it.

You do not understand why it is unjustifiable, so, you blame some sort of conspiracy or ill in civil society for your inability to back your free-association with your name.

[hax0ron3]

I mean, I personally find the idea of rolling back women's rights to be repellent, but arguments should not be judged based on whether or not the author feels compelled to make them anonymously. In history, there have been plenty of true and justifiable things said anonymously because the people saying them were worried about being persecuted for their opinions.

[refulgentis]

You are ensuring that we do not invert the causal order: i.e. keep the order that it is a bad argument, then, conjecture about why one would offer one. The community appreciates that.

[wrg]

I wasn't being impolite, maybe you are inferring impoliteness into it where there is none?

Unjustifiable? Not at all.

I am fully aware of how much of a third rail my point was, and you guessed right about why I used this account to make it. Shouldn't that say something to you? I don't think I am saying something necessarily bad, but it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about this because neither side is really willing to give any ground. I'm also glad the backdrop of this discussion was the fucking South Korean army's size as you can't really get more high stakes (for South Korea at least) than that. Yet still, we're somehow not allowed to discuss it, it's too taboo.

And why are you framing it as a conspiracy? Prima facie, is my point really that incoherent? Inflammatory, sure. But is there really no link between births in a country and that country's female population being largely in the workforce? C'mon. Please do stop this inane shouting down of taboo subjects, do not brow beat people for using anonymous accounts when it's clear why they are doing so. Discuss the issue rather than brush it under the carpet until the hump gets too large to ignore and absolute trash like Tate and friends make use of it to increase their platform. Be smart, maybe learn lessons from the last few years in politics.

/rant

[wrg]

Ah yes the epic downboot. That will definitely stop this issue metastasizing into something that will get hijacked by the Andrew Tates of the world. Let's just pretend until we can't!

[happytoexplain]

You called it the elephant in the room, but then you chose to speak mysteriously about it, and became belligerent when asked to clarify. I still don't understand what you were saying in the original post regarding women's rights, even after reading this reply.