Leaderboard

Take the pay cut. Live like many Americans have to for their whole lives, and in a couple years you're golden. It's worth it. You are choosing between doing something that makes you miserable and living a median lifestyle. You may be surprised how easy it is to be very happy making very little. And in a few years, you'll be making a ton.

I would argue a person has agency, and therefore a right to life and liberty. I don't believe in god, and don't think there's any inherent value in human life. Euthanasia and doctor assisted suicides are fine by me, even if the actual implementation is super sticky. I wasn't being snarky, justifiable homicide is generally how I think about an acceptable abortion at this point in time. I realize you can argue about levels of agency in a baby, but we all know babies grow. I can't see how a zygote is a person, I also can't see how a soon to be born baby isn't a person. I don't have a good answer beyond that. I'd probably be fine with an arbitrary line drawn somewhere in the middle. But I'm not personally wound up about, since I can't parse a 100% answer myself. Of course this is all philosophical. If you aren't dogmatic about it, that's the only place this conversation ends up. There are many people who aren't capable of actually having a conversation, nor agreeing on what the conversation is actually about.

The abortion (and by extension, pregnancy and children's) issue doesn't live in a vacuum. It touches on healthcare access, economic issues, and societal/community support both during pregnancy and through when that child becomes an adult. 1- The state isn't making that decision to abort a pregnancy, typically it's the mother. If we were looking at state-directed abortion or sterilization, then you have a point here, but that's not the case. However, the US still allows forced sterilization, which was upheld by the supreme court...(you could argue that this just prevents life from starting, or that this is the government's way of killing off kids before they can even be conceived) 2- Your argument doesn't address problems with triage. How do you weigh the life of the mother against the life of the unborn baby? If carrying the baby to term will kill the mother, who's life is more important? And who should make that decision (the mother who's life is in danger, or someone else)? 3- It also ignores the need for access to medical care, both for the the mother and baby, and not just for the pregnancy, but through the first several months after birth, assuming no complications. 4-We also don't have any real mandated maternity leave (sure, they can take 12 weeks of unpaid leave through FMLA assuming they meet the criteria, but what pays the bills then?). Maybe if you work for a decent company and have decent insurance, they'll get some maternity pay, but likely reduced from normal. 5-Should women who have a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter? 6-Should a mother with a fetus with known serious genetic disorders be forced to give birth to the child, when that child will suffer and live a very shortened life? What if the parents have no means to pay for the medical care for that child? It's laughable to think the gov will pay for that child's medical bills-the parents would likely go bankrupt doing what they can for the kid, or be judged harshly (or criminally) for "letting" the kid die if they don't exhaust every avenue for medical treatment. 7- There's the personal choice argument as well-don't have sex unless you're ready to have a baby. Sure, if you want to take that hard stance, then why not apply it elsewhere and be consistent? Should a drunk driver that wraps their car around a tree receive medical treatment? Should insurance be forced to cover their medical bills for an objectively bad (science shows alcohol degrades cognitive and motor skills needed to operate a car) and illegal personal choice? Should they be allowed to discharge the medical debt through bankruptcy, or should they be forced to pay off what they owe for services provided or harm/damage caused regardless of how long it takes (or maybe cap it at 18 years of payments...). I don't see how people can believe so strongly that abortion is wrong, and yet work so hard against helping that child be born healthy (specifically, access to healthcare and paid maternity leave), as all of those issues show how society values life. If it's so important to society that the child is born, even against the mother's wishes, society should pay to ensure the child is born healthy and has a support network after birth (which means people need to be willing to adopt or foster kids when the birth parents do not wish to raise the kid). I'm not advocating for abortion, nor do I believe that is generally the right choice. But there's enough edge cases where it may be the best option available given the circumstances involved. So I'd rather defer the choice from government to the individual, to make the choice that is right for them, rather than have the government dictate what to do.

God bless Texas (it's about fucking time!) Permitless carry of a handgun in Texas nearly law, after Senate OKs bill

Let me ask the question in a different way, so as not to lead the conversation into a one way answer like you did. What is the value of life? Not just for as an embryo or fetus, but as an infant, child, teenager, adult, elderly adult? If you value life (which is *the* argument against abortion, and most people value life in some form or fashion), do you value it equally across a lifetime, or does the value change at different points in life, and why does it change? A related question that feeds into the value of life is what is the goal or purpose in life? Minimize suffering? Maximize personal happiness? Work towards some greater societal good? Maximize wealth? Is it a sense of duty or obligation to society (family, friends, organization, country)? Create as many offspring to propagate your genes? Different goals will cause you to change how you value life in general and for particular groups. Along the same line as the original question you passed, is it ever right to kill another person? I'd hope that since most people on this board are in the military that the answer is yes. However, there are people who don't believe it's right to do so, or set the bar much higher than where our national policy is for the use of force. Is collateral damage acceptable in military operations, and if so, where do you draw the line on what an innocent life is worth in order to achieve military objectives? Yes, those are philosophical questions, and I'll probably be accused of waffling in the middle. But it's a way to examine why you think the way you do in a reasoned way. And just for reference, younger me was staunchly pro-life, but older me who's talked with more people about their opinions and tried to take hard looks at not just what I believe, but also why (which is largely why I post lengthy posts on topics here that pique my interest), has led me to be pro-choice for a matter of national policy while still viewing abortion as generally wrong, because there's enough situations where it might be an acceptable choice given the facts of the situation. I'm cautiously optimistic that most people value life and will do the best they can if they are face with this decision. And if they're getting abortions because they don't want the responsibility of raising a kid for whatever reason, well, they'd probably be a crappy parent that would raise a kid that doesn't contribute to (or becomes a drain on) society anyways. It's good to encourage them to keep the baby, but if not, that decision is on them, and not on me, and on the religious side of this issue, the action is between them and God, and God will take care of any punishment that is due to them.

So... you're saying "Toneyville" means nothing to you?

Yet doctors don’t have to fight for pro pay every year...

It’s probably as fun as flying a C-17 into ORBI with a 100 hr FP Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably the stupidest argument that I hear kicked around for the sim-only track (regardless of type simulated) is "well, the airlines train sim-only". This completely ignores that the airlines don't hire dudes with nearly zero hours. Ask any regional Capt how much fun it is to fly with a straight-from-flight-instructing new FO, and that's on a relatively small regional jet doing a VERY canned and low-threat flight profile.

So we can buy more F-35 and KC-46...

Yeah, I should have suggested those two smaller models Those would be fine and better sized Shooting the moon I would want a PC-24 The main thing is to not phone it in with Phase 3 no matter the track Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Staff assignments are getting rarer due to the pilot shortage, so I guess there's that silver lining. Though I guess mobility pilots are still going to TACC [emoji2961] UPT flying is pretty much flying for flying's sake. I was pretty disappointed when I got tagged to go, but it turned out to be an absolute blast, and I think I'm a better pilot and instructor for it. It also helped that I had a great, tight knit squadron. Not a hard pitch to stay in, everyone's got their priorities and what they want it of their career and life. Just a different viewpoint so the younger guys don't just see doom and gloom.

But why do the heavy / crew tracked studs have to get a cheap (in airplane terms) if the Tone is getting near the end of its service life (via divestment or need for an unacceptable refurbishment)? Kinda of a rhetorical question as I know what the Bobs are thinking but to hell with that, heavy GOs just rolling over and letting this part of the rated community get screwed over (assuming an eventual T-1 divestment with no replacement or with one that is less than the T-1) is infuriating bullshit If you want quality then you have to select for it and train for it. Anyway. Contact out initial ME training to get the bounces in someone else’s iron, next train in a STOL fixed gear ME platform for short and unprepared fields then move to a jet for the meat & potatoes. Refurbished and modernized T-1 or a new jet, if a new jet then I would suggest a Cessna CJ4. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RIP TYV Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

If that dude sitting their with his head up his ass is still alive, fire him. Holy hell dude. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i was trying to say these things without writing a book...thanks.

Single engine though and I would say that doing one engine out training prior to FTU might have some benefit. The Mustang was also around $2M. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I would not. Although they should just for decision making for flying an RNAV when they set up the ILS for their precision and decided not to fly the localizer. ~Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

Extremely common misunderstanding. Initial ADSC is the first ADSC you pick up: the commissioning ADSC. After that there may be other restrictions in the palace chase AFI, but 2/3 of 5 or 4 is the first hurdle. Next hurdle would be getting hired when you’re so young in your pilot career (maybe).

I have this same question^. Since it says "initial ADSC" I would imagine you can apply right when you PCS, even with 2 years remaining on a PCS ADSC since that isn't your "initial ADSC", but I do wonder if that's the case... To try to answer your first question, based on the AFI (36-3205), as long as you completed 2/3 of that initial ADSC then you are able to apply for Palace Chase...but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be accepted. However, with the expanded palace chase program @pawnman posted about above, I could see the AF more apt to accepting applications with more years remaining

You can’t reason with the far left (and right)—they’re the same people who think that it’s racist to require an ID to vote and it’s like Jim Crow, but yet requiring that same ID to purchase a gun is just “common sense”. We even have people on this site who support such nonsense. The difference I see is that for the most part it’s the left that has gotten far more extreme with their views in the last 10+ years. Remember when the left was against illegal immigration, and now if you even say the words the left will call you a racist? Just one of many examples. And sure there are examples on the right—the abortion issue for one. But again, which side has seen the greatest change in the last 10+ years? I think it’s obvious.

Got a story for you guys. This is going to be long and a little out of left field but I figure where better than to share it in this thread so I'll just go ahead. I have accidentally conducted a decade-long free speech experiment in the comment section of one of the most liberal leaning "news" sites in the world, and here are my findings. Let me explain. So there I was in college back in the 2010 timeframe and I got turned on to this fringe leftist news website called motherjones. Some of you might know it. They used to run an actual print magazine too. If you haven't heard of them just go check the site right now, they're running articles about how opposing dc statehood is racist, how much people like that Biden is "boring" and other standard leftist tropes. Compared to the bias in the MSM it's nothing particularly new or interesting, they've just been doing it shamelessly and for a lot longer. When I got turned on to this site in college I would read the ludicrous articles for fun and I immediately gravitated toward the comment section. It was a hive of activity with 40-50 comments on an average article and sometimes hundreds on the popular ones. I made an account and immediately started debating people. I never intended to troll, I simply enjoyed being in the minority there and trying to pick apart other peoples ideas. I became kind of addicted to playing political devils advocate in an ideologically homogenous place. Other quasi conservatives came and went, mostly trolls, but I was a semi active commenter for 7+ years. I had some legitimately good debates with people and I like to think I changed a few minds and had my mind changed about a few things too. The first time I noticed a change in the comments section was a few years back when they got rid of disqus (comment hosting software) and moved to a comment moderation/hosting service call coral. Coral is run by ... drumroll... Vox. So I think you can already guess where this story is going. The pitch was that the new moderation software was going to crack down on hate speech and inappropriate content. At first there was very little change, but then other users started complaining that the moderation was flagging them for profanity. I was always very careful not to swear in comments and didn't have an issue at first. But then I started having comments sent to moderation for no apparent reason. Moderation simply for cordially disagreeing or posting a mainstream opposing viewpoint. Some of my comments made it through the filters (with extremely careful wording) but then it got weirder as I noticed the bile filled responses to my comments weren't being blocked at all. Name calling, ad hominem attacks, death threats, and every label from nazi to the literal devil were thrown my way, laced with profanity the entire time. All the while More of my comments started getting blocked. Meanwhile comments from bots for porn sites and money scams started passing through the filter too. It became increasingly obvious that the sole purpose of the moderation was to shut down any opposing viewpoint no matter how it was presented. I tried making a new username but after 3 or 4 posts the moderation figures out you aren't a flaming liberal and just blocks anything new you submit. I noticed on my main account they even went back in my comment history and retroactively deleted some old comments of mine. It's simply not worth even trying to engage anymore because the moderation wall won't let anything through. So what is the motherjones comment section like today? Well it's 6-9 commenters that log on every day to violently agree with each other and say that conservatives are evil and the source of all problems. There are no dissenting opinions and the tone from the regular commenters is increasingly self-congratulatory. It's one of the most severe political echo chambers I've ever seen and a perfect microcosm of what our political discourse has become. Now I'm not going to complain that my speech is being infringed because of course motherjones is a private company that can do what it wants, but there are lessons to be learned here. 1. echo chambers are insidious. It's easy to look into another echo chamber and see the stupidity for what it is, but we need to be incredibly cautious with our own information diet to not end up in one ourselves. 2. Diversity of opinion is good for business. These days motherjones is always running some kind of pathetic donation campaign to stay afloat. I saw first hand what their idiotic moderation did to their comment section engagement and I'm sure those anti-speech tendencies are torpedoing the rest of their business. 3. Go to motherjones if you want to read some truly entertaining leftist nonsense. But I'll warn you, it will make you mad and you will want to comment. Don't waste your time.

This. I'm curious how much is spent on dentists and doctors every year. I think we can safely argue that the Air Force would run just fine if it had neither. Kinda need those pilots though.....

It's ok, just identify as both a male and a female when you fill out your app. Now you're in on both sides of the 50% quota. Actual race and sex discrimination in an attempt to fix perceived race and sex discrimination...

OK, not a dirndl; but incorporates all the best aspects of one...