Posts from Actaea

p.s. Vagin is, by the way, a quite common surname.

Will children be "insecure and have complexes because they can't wear what they want"? Please. What nonsense. A child needs to be psychologically stable enough just to attend school. Therefore, if someone develops complexes because of such trivial things, life will be difficult for them anyway. Moreover, children can wear whatever they want after school.
Of course, many people don't like uniforms, and that's normal. But to develop complexes because of this is an exaggeration.

Yes, I see. Now, let's reason like this. We have two lions and one lioness in the enclosure. One lion is dominant and has essentially claimed the lioness for himself. What do we do? Well, let's give the lions some catnip so that the second lion can have some fun and won't be so upset. But... wouldn't it be better to separate the lions into different enclosures and give the second lion another lioness? Wouldn't that solve the root of the problem instead of doing something unclear for an unclear reason?

The same applies here. If there's a chance that children will treat a classmate with a lower socioeconomic status badly (although it's really hard to imagine, but let's assume), then what do school uniforms have to do with it? Implement a social program, some kind of charity... Sponsor schools so that they can organize help for their poor students and buy clothes for those who don't have the money for it. After all, that's what would solve the root of the problem, right?

I disagree with this position. It seems like all of this is trivial, but at a young age, it really matters, even when it's not consciously realized. Young children are very impressionable; it seems like nothing happened, but in reality, any little thing will definitely settle in the subconscious.

I haven't completely forgotten my time as a schoolchild. And honestly, when you have teachers who don't exert authority. When you have a semi-free school uniform (we just had to wear gray jackets, of any color. And no other requirements. And the jackets themselves were easy to have on hand, not necessarily to wear all the time). When you're not forced to keep a diary, but instead you just go to school with a university grade book. All of this is incredibly motivating! You just feel like you can move mountains, you're doing something, not just wasting time.

One lion was born an albino and is not accepted by the pride... Therefore, you can paint all the lions the same color, and then they will not perceive him as an outsider.

I was asked the question "why does uniform increase pacifism?". Nothing more.

Of course, if a child is in a vacuum, they may develop complexes. But this is not a problem of the school uniform.

Regarding clones... well, you don't think that the uniform somehow limits the development, the child's imagination? And will the "clones" be stupider than those with free-form clothing?

Stop. That's correct. But – you claim that the difference in financial status (which is expressed, among other things, in clothing) in some cases can lead to a child being bullied. Hence, aggression, hence the lack of pacifism. Is that right? ) If not, then the uniform will not have any positive effect on pacifism.

In the case of lions, albinism in a lion is a problem in itself, and not its external manifestation. Painting the lions is one way to solve it, albeit a rather crude one, but it solves the problem.

) I was saying that it is a problem of everything, of all factors, including the uniform. I may be wrong... But still, my own modest experience tells me that things are stored in the subconscious that you may not even consciously notice. This is especially true in childhood. It's not a problem. Not some kind of nightmare that needs to be urgently solved and all that. But in the future, it may have an impact, and therefore it is better to at least take even such small things into account.

Rex Ventorum was reclassified from "Compulsory Consumerist State" to "Capitalist Paradise".

With military recruitment numbers down, there's been some discussion in civilian circles of relaxing 'sodomy' regulations in the armed forces in order to allow homosexuals to serve openly. However, with the occasional reports from the field of suspected homosexuals being beaten by their squadmates, some wonder if such measures are really appropriate for the notoriously conservative culture of Sciencecracy's military.
The Debate

"There will never be room for gays in our God-fearing service," says Army Chaplain Orel Roze, absent-mindedly fingering the religious device of his office on his lapel. "I mean, uh, think about what it would do to morale. In the military men have to eat, live, and sleep in extremely close quarters and even consensual sexual relationships in the chain of command leads to leadership problems. It's just a natural extension of fraternization rules... and not only that, but our current policy is actually a service to the poor misguided souls, since it prevents any temptation to act on their given perversion... I mean preference."

"God doesn't enter into it," says Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Marleen Smith, head shaking. "Times are changing, and people are becoming more accepting of homosexuals. We have women in the military, and that surely leads to 'temptation', but for the most part everyone's quite professional about it. Allowing homosexuals to serve openly will increase our recruitment pool and actually simplify things; just look at the Navy: hundreds of horny men in steel boxes in the middle of the ocean for up to six months at a time... there has to be a reason that people volunteer for that, right?"
This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.

"This coming from some pampered soul in the Chair Force," scoffs Commander Brian Licorish, calling in via satellite from aboard a destroyer. "Inter-service rivalries aside, ever read some of those ancient sagas about cities being besieged? Those ancient cultures had no problem with homosexuality; actually, it strengthened their resolve and spirit because they were literally fighting alongside their lovers, and anyone in the service will tell you it's all about the guy standing next to you. Now, what if--and this is just a hypothetical, mind--based on this and to counter years of discrimination, only homosexuals were allowed to serve?"

I just don't understand what they're suggesting in the third option. Please help.

"An army of lovers." Allow only homosexuals to serve.

You can choose this option and, by looking at the self-defense line, find out how many homosexuals there are in your country.