How to tell how much makeup someone is wearing?

[outin]

And some would argue that that concept, of itself, discriminated against them.

That is very true!

[chopinlover01]

I don't nessecarily believe in Feminism, but I do believe in equality of both genders. Not just in laws, but in treating men and women as sexual EQUALS. And that doesn't mean that we should treat men like sexual objects OR like people who use sexual objects then toss them aside (which is currently how many are perceived). This means, yes; a much better sex ed program, more access to contraception, giving women choice over their own bodies, and treating them as real people. It also means NOT promoting them above men, as that kind of defeats the purpose of equality for both genders. If we treat either sex like a god, then the other will start movements like Feminism or the Men's Rights Activism Movement or whatever the $%^& it is.

[chopincat]

both genders

I couldn't tell if you guys were joking before about this or not, but that phrase really does exclude a lot of people. Gender is a spectrum, so there are way more than just two genders. Cisgendered people (that is, people who were born with the anatomy of the gender they identify with) have a lot of privileges in that sense as well!

[thalbergmad]

OR like people who use sexual objects then toss them aside.

Well, when the batteries run out, there is not a lot you can do.

[chopinlover01]

The people who don't identify with either the male or female gender are a rather small minority. We should include their views in our laws, but our knees should not be bending at their every whim when we have a majority of voters that we have to appease.
@Thal, isn't there a thing called a charger? Or, new batteries?

[chopincat]

The people who don't identify with either the male or female gender are a rather small minority. We should include their views in our laws, but our knees should not be bending at their every whim when we have a majority of voters that we have to appease.

I mean... this is the exact same thing people said about gays/lesbians before it became more mainstream.

I also wasn't really talking about laws. I was just talking about day-to-day language that can make people feel more accepted. If we continue to treat gender like a completely binary concept, people who aren't gender binary will feel alienated.

[cwjalex]

that is, people who were born with the anatomy of the gender they identify with) have a lot of privileges in that sense as well!

i fully support transgenders but i'm not fond of this privileged line of thinking.  it's like saying because some people are born missing a leg or hand that the rest of us 99.9% are privileged because we have all of our limbs. it promotes a victimhood mentality instead of focusing on overcoming difficulties.  no matter who you are there are advantages and disadvantages to your race, gender, age, and socio-economic status.  i would rather focus on working hard to overcome difficulties than dwell on the down sides of our individual situations. discrimination is real but it is not such an obstacle that it will prevent an intelligent, hard working person from succeeding.

[chopinlover01]

i fully support transgenders but i'm not fond of this privileged line of thinking.  it's like saying because some people are born missing a leg or hand that the rest of us 99.9% are privileged because we have all of our limbs. it promotes a victimhood mentality instead of focusing on overcoming difficulties.  no matter who you are there are advantages and disadvantages to your race, gender, age, and socio-economic status.  i would rather focus on working hard to overcome difficulties than dwell on the down sides of our individual situations. discrimination is real but it is not such an obstacle that it will prevent an intelligent, hard working person from succeeding.

Thank you!
Also, again. I fully support transgender, but the amount of people actually transgender is actually around 1 in 1500 (https://www.isna.org/faq/frequency), versus the amount of Lesbians and gays being about 10% (which I believe is now common knowledge; so no citation needed? I can find one later if need be). So not the same...
And, the language we use now (or at least that I do) is fairly gender neutral, except for things like "He/she said that he/she did..." etc. Which, in the case of someone who does not feel like they are either gender (which, by the way, is not the majority of cases in transsexuality; cases of people identifying themselves with the opposite of the two sexes is also a case, as is people who have gotten surgery), I usually use a gender arbitrary pronoun. In the cases listed in the parenthesis, I use the pronoun pertaining to whichever gender the person identifies with.

[chopincat]

i fully support transgenders but i'm not fond of this privileged line of thinking.  it's like saying because some people are born missing a leg or hand that the rest of us 99.9% are privileged because we have all of our limbs.

I don't think you quite understand the experience of being transgender. It's far different than being born missing a leg or a hand (though ableism is also a system of oppression, but that's a different discussion). Can you imagine being trapped inside of a body that you know you do not belong to? Can you imagine people freaking out just because of which bathroom you go too? Can you imagine constantly being surrounded by other people who think that you are disgusting and unnatural? Can you imagine confiding in your close friends and family about how you feel about your gender, only to find that they do not understand you and just think you're going through a phase?

no matter who you are there are advantages and disadvantages to your race, gender, age, and socio-economic status.  i would rather focus on working hard to overcome difficulties than dwell on the down sides of our individual situations. discrimination is real but it is not such an obstacle that it will prevent an intelligent, hard working person from succeeding.

That's easy for you to say. Just because the obstacles in your life haven't stopped you from succeeding doesn't mean that other people will have the same experience. Oppression can create huge problems that people can't overcome just by being "hard working." Hard work is not going to make people accept your sexual orientation or gender identity. Hard work is not going to get you a higher education that will open job opportunities if you come from a background that is so poor that you cannot even afford to stay in secondary school, because you need to take a minimum-wage job to support your family. If disabilities prevent you from being able to take a vast majority of jobs, hard work is not going to make them disappear. And I could give countless other examples...

Thank you!
Also, again. I fully support transgender, but the amount of people actually transgender is actually around 1 in 1500 (https://www.isna.org/faq/frequency), versus the amount of Lesbians and gays being about 10% (which I believe is now common knowledge; so no citation needed? I can find one later if need be). So not the same...

I never said it was the same situation, only the same argument. It's also important to note that in past times, not nearly as many gay/lesbian/bi people were out, and that the number of trans people who are out will likely go up as people become more accepting.

And, the language we use now (or at least that I do) is fairly gender neutral

Just a minute ago I pointed out your use of the phrase "both genders." The word "both" assumes that there are only two genders, which is not true. It's much more inclusive - and not particularly difficult - to say "all genders."

[cwjalex]

.

[chopinlover01]

It's easy for you to stay that, too- none of us know what it's like unless you have the experience. Sure, it's simply enough to imagine it, but the same can be said for war. You can imagine the effects of Post Traumatic Stress and flashbacks to the war, but ask any soldier how it was and painful memories come up.
We should be helping the minority of people who have that "situation" (for lack of a better word), but we can't drop all the books in our arms to pick up a pen cap.

[chopincat]

It's easy for you to stay that, too- none of us know what it's like unless you have the experience. Sure, it's simply enough to imagine it, but the same can be said for war. You can imagine the effects of Post Traumatic Stress and flashbacks to the war, but ask any soldier how it was and painful memories come up.
We should be helping the minority of people who have that "situation" (for lack of a better word), but we can't drop all the books in our arms to pick up a pen cap.

Yes, being a veteran with awful PTSD is painful and difficult in many ways, which is why they get tons of benefits under our law!!! It's very true that you can't know what someone else's experience is. You can know and recognize that there are factors working against them, however, as we do here in the US with veterans. But you can never know exactly what their experience is. It is for much the same reason that I feel like it's pretty messed up to tell an unsuccessful person of color, poor person or disabled person that they're just not working hard enough.

I don't think we should drop all of our books either. But we need to recognize the fact that privilege and oppression have huge effects on people's lives that are not just going to go away with hard work in every situation. That's not promoting victimhood. It's just being realistic.

[chopinlover01]

Tons of benefits... ahm, no. Talk to any retired vet; many of them struggle to make ends meet.
Is being born healthy truly a privilege? I'm not saying we should take it for granted; (I have genetic depression/anxiety which is somewhat debelitating at times) I'm just saying that we need to also focus on bigger issues; not to say that Feminism (or, for a better name, Equality among all genders) isn't an important issue, but when we (in the US) have a 17 trillion dollar debt you'd think they might just make the mens pay just as low as women's, and use the difference to pay China or something  who knows (That was sarcastic, btw).
And, yes, veterans have SOME benefits under our law; but the reason they are given these benefits and the reason they take them is because they are RESPECTED in our society. Which is precisely what needs to happen; but nothing more. Treating women like objects and everything related is awful, yes, but treating them like gods does the same to men, which many (radical) feminists do.
It's not so much the idea, as many of the people around it I have the problem with...
I'm done debating here... nothing against anyone who posted, I just have a family emergency going on and have precious little time to spare to debate Feminism If you wish to keep debating for whatever reason tickles your fancy, feel free to PM me.

[chopincat]

Is being born healthy truly a privilege? I'm not saying we should take it for granted; (I have genetic depression/anxiety which is somewhat debelitating at times)

I also have genetic depression and anxiety and i understand what you're saying here.

And, yes, veterans have SOME benefits under our law; but the reason they are given these benefits and the reason they take them is because they are RESPECTED in our society. Which is precisely what needs to happen; but nothing more.

This is for the most part what I think as well! Laws can only go so far, and what really needs to change is education and attitudes, not only with regards to women but with the idea of privilege in general.

I'm done debating here... nothing against anyone who posted, I just have a family emergency going on and have precious little time to spare to debate Feminism If you wish to keep debating for whatever reason tickles your fancy, feel free to PM me.

I hope things work out with your family emergency! And for what it's worth, I think we agree on a lot more than we realize.

[outin]

Well, when the batteries run out, there is not a lot you can do.

Really, I thought you guys wouldn't have a problem with that?

[outin]

Just a minute ago I pointed out your use of the phrase "both genders." The word "both" assumes that there are only two genders, which is not true. It's much more inclusive - and not particularly difficult - to say "all genders."

In the context of feminism versus men's right movement it is logical to use such a phrase. It refer's to both genders under discussion. It's a completely different (but important) discussion whether we acknowledge that it's too restrictive and unrealistic to devide all people into those two groups.

[thalbergmad]

Tons of benefits... ahm, no. Talk to any retired vet; many of them struggle to make ends meet.

Same here in England. Our soldiers are treated like crap and their problems ignored, but if a convicted criminal wants his knob cut off and have a couple of huge breasts and be called Delilah instead of Derek, up pops the usual bunch of lefty weirdos and all of a sudden, thousands of pounds are available and the might of the system is fighting for his/her/its, rights.

Thal

[chopincat]

In the context of feminism versus men's right movement it is logical to use such a phrase. It refer's to both genders under discussion. It's a completely different (but important) discussion whether we acknowledge that it's too restrictive and unrealistic to devide all people into those two groups.

It's not a completely different discussion at all, actually. Have you heard of intersectionality?

if a convicted criminal wants his knob cut off and have a couple of huge breasts and be called Delilah instead of Derek, up pops the usual bunch of lefty weirdos and all of a sudden, thousands of pounds are available and the might of the system is fighting for his/her/its, rights.

If you had been born with a female body, you would hope to find money to pay for your gender reassignment surgery as well. Being transgendered isn't a choice, just like being gay isn't a choice. If I recall correctly, you once said that you've supported gay rights for many years.

[thalbergmad]

It is a matter of priority. Money should be spent on caring for our heros first and foremost, but their needs seem to be ignored, whilst someone who has broken our laws and wants a pair of titties only has to start whinging about his rights and all of a sudden, money is plentiful.

Thal

[cwjalex]

It is a matter of priority. Money should be spent on caring for our heros first and foremost, but their needs seem to be ignored, whilst someone who has broken our laws and wants a pair of titties only has to start whinging about his rights and all of a sudden, money is plentiful.

Thal

wow, my response initially started out with the exact same first sentence.  in a perfect world with unlimited resources i would be happy with the state paying for reassignment surgery, but there are many more important things that the state should focus on before a criminal's elective surgery.  when you break the law your needs, while still important, come second to law abiding citizens.

[chopinlover01]

If you had been born with a female body, you would hope to find money to pay for your gender reassignment surgery as well. Being transgendered isn't a choice, just like being gay isn't a choice. If I recall correctly, you once said that you've supported gay rights for many years.

(Since I'm no longer in the middle of a local giant pissing contest, I'll respond again!)
He was talking about the gov't paying for it, not finding the money in your own bank account. Should we be paying for the surgery of criminals, people who committed a crime against another person, while the people who fought in wars are homeless?
The answer should be clear.

[chopincat]

(Since I'm no longer in the middle of a local giant pissing contest, I'll respond again!)
He was talking about the gov't paying for it, not finding the money in your own bank account. Should we be paying for the surgery of criminals, people who committed a crime against another person, while the people who fought in wars are homeless?
The answer should be clear.

I might be missing something major (and if I am please let me know), but I've never heard of a case where a government has paid for gender reassignment surgery for a convicted criminal. I haven't heard of a case where a government has paid for gender reassignment surgery for anyone actually, only providing health care that covers it.

[cwjalex]

michelle kosilek is a convicted murder and in 2012 a court ruled that the state must pay for sex reassignment surgery paid by the taxpayers.  only a few months ago it was overturned in a split 3-2 decision.  kosilek's attorney is going to appeal to the supreme court though so the original decision could easily be upheld.  it is not a far fetched idea that the united states government might pay for gender re assignment surgery for people on deathrow even though we are trillions of dollars in debt.  i'm a huge transgender supporter but to me this is insanity. oh yeah and bradley manning was sentenced to 35 years and is also requesting this surgery provided by the taxpayers.  this is still going through litigation.  these are the only ones that come to mind but i'm sure i can find many others.

[chopincat]

Thanks for the information. I didn't know about cases like that. To be honest, I'm not really sure what to think of them yet, because I can see them from both sides at the moment.

I do think that it's fair that hormone supplements and similar treatments be made available to inmates though. To me that seems comparable to providing anti-depressants or lithium. That seems more clear to me.

[cwjalex]

it's difficult to justify having our tax dollars pay for reassignment surgery for a criminal when there are law abiding citizens who can't afford decent healthcare.  like others have said it's all about priorities.  keep in mind that kosilek is on deathrow.  she has absolutely no chance of freedom and could be executed tomorrow.  i don't deny her suffering but to alleviate hers while essentially ignoring the suffering of law abiding citizens seems unjust to me.  

i'm perfectly okay and support state healthcare paying for reassignment and hormone treatment.  i just strongly believe that when you commit a felony like murder or rape that your needs should come after the needs of law abiding citizens.  when we have universal healthcare and aren't in a zillion dollars of debt i will be much more receptive to the idea of gov't paid reassignment surgery for criminals.

[outin]

It's not a completely different discussion at all, actually. Have you heard of intersectionality?

Of course I have. And yes, we can expand the discussion to include the complexity of the concept gender as well. But in this particular case the quote was taken out of context. Considering my views on gender and sex, the sociolinguistic aspect you referred to just wasn't relevant

[thalbergmad]

I do think that it's fair that hormone supplements and similar treatments be made available to inmates though.

Sure, if they pay for it, but when ex servicemen are homeless and begging on the streets, not a single penny of government money should be spent on this kind of treatment for criminals.

Unfortunately, there are too many lefty retards who think otherwise.

Thal

[j_menz]

Sure, if they pay for it, but when ex servicemen are homeless and begging on the streets, not a single penny of government money should be spent on this kind of treatment for criminals.

Unfortunately, there are too many lefty retards who think otherwise.

Thal

Unlike the Tory retards who think refurbishment of their moat takes priority on the public purse?

[Petter]

I have another idea, but it will take more time.  This way she's likely to be focused more on you rather than on her.

Begin dressing like her.  Copy her mannerisms, speech patterns, movement, etc., everything.  Stick to her schedule.  Join in on her activities.  And then ask her how much makeup she wears, what kind, how she puts it on, etc. 

That will take several months to pull off, but I doubt she'll be insulted when you finally ask.

brilliant plan

[ahinton]

Well, when the batteries run out, there is not a lot you can do.

You could have used rechargeable ones instead, surely?

Best,

Alistair

[chopinlover01]

Females, especially the attractive looking ones... they analyze everything you say. It's usually better to say nothing at all. You have better chances with the Busoni piano concerto.

Well, in any case, if she happens to show very poor signs of character, the makeup provides you verbal artillery in a last resort situation:
"Maybe if you swallowed some of that makeup of yours you'd be beautiful on the inside."

I revisited some earlier posts of this thread and found this.
1) Quite true in many (but not all) cases. I'd get rid of the thought of the more attractive ones being more analytically inclined though..
2) You don't know how much I'd pay to see this happen.....

[thalbergmad]

Unlike the Tory retards who think refurbishment of their moat takes priority on the public purse?

I would rather money be spent on that than give a pair of chesticles to a criminal.

Thal

[chopincat]

I would rather money be spent on that than give a pair of chesticles to a criminal.

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second, because I think there's a side to this that you're not seeing. A lot of people don't want to pay for wars. They don't even want their country to be at war, so why should they have to pay for it? And why would these people want to pay for veterans? Veterans might seem like heroes to you, but other people could see them as avid supporters of a war that they felt was unjust or unnecessary in the first place. To these people, the problems that veterans have now are either their own fault or the fault of the government, so why should we have to fund them?

This isn't my view, and like I said before I don't know where I stand on this issue yet, but if you're going to bring up the "I'd rather pay for this than that" argument, that's something you have to consider.

Also, I get that you hate lefties, but is it really necessary to call them r*tards? There are so many other words you could use that would get the exact same point across and aren't hateful slurs.

[cwjalex]

A lot of people don't want to pay for wars. They don't even want their country to be at war, so why should they have to pay for it? And why would these people want to pay for veterans? Veterans might seem like heroes to you, but other people could see them as avid supporters of a war that they felt was unjust or unnecessary in the first place. To these people, the problems that veterans have now are either their own fault or the fault of the government, so why should we have to fund them?

i know you are providing a hypothetical, but i don't think it's fair to compare a war veteran to a convicted criminal.  you can't get much more opposite than their situations.  to argue that a veteran's suffering is their own fault is a pretty radical position that i don't think you will encounter too often in serious discussion.  the general idea that we all have to pay for services that we don't support still remains though.

[chopinlover01]

^
I was actually thinking the same thing. But, if you look back to Vietnam, where most of our veterans are from, you'd see that it was mandatory, or you were incarcerated. A famous example of this was Muhammed Ali. He was drafted and he refused to go to war, due to how blacks were treated back then, and was sent to prison. So, if the devil uses logic, then we'd realize rather quickly that it wasn't actually their own fault.
@Thal- the term "lefty" is also a generic stereotype/slur of a member of a political spectrum. If we're going to avoid stereotypes, then we should say, "the people who support state funded reassignment surgery but don't support helping our veterans" (which, if you actually asked people about it in those terms, it would be a rather small minority).

[j_menz]

i don't think it's fair to compare a war veteran to a convicted criminal.  you can't get much more opposite than their situations.

And like all generalisations, there are exceptions. Might I point out that Hitler was a war veteran?

[chopinlover01]

And like all generalisations, there are exceptions. Might I point out that Hitler was a war veteran?

Hitler also was ever in economic crisis, to my knowledge. He was a veteran of WW1, yes, but he also was the leader of a political party.

[cwjalex]

And like all generalisations, there are exceptions. Might I point out that Hitler was a war veteran?

i think most people realize that i wasn't referring to people like hitler when i said war veteran.

[j_menz]

So "war veteran" doesn't mean any old war veteran? Just the ones who aren't in economic crisis, who aren't politically active and who are of good character?

[cwjalex]

in the context of what i wrote it precisely means any old war veteran.  likewise, a "convicted criminal" refers to the majority of criminals who are justly incarcerated and were responsible, not the minority where they were involved in ambiguous or extraordinary circumstances and/or unjustly convicted.  in general, we're talking about the vast majority of everyday cases.  

when i say it's absurd to compare the needs of war veterans to convicted criminals, in response to chopincat's comparison, it should be obvious that i am not referring to outliers such as hitler or those wrongly convicted.

[chopincat]

you can't get much more opposite than their situations.  to argue that a veteran's suffering is their own fault is a pretty radical position that i don't think you will encounter too often in serious discussion.

Haha I live in New York, I encounter things that you would consider much more radical than this all the time in serious discussion. I think I didn't express my hypothetical clear enough though, because I meant it more as "there are people who don't want to pay for veterans either" than "there are people who would rather pay for reassignment for criminals than for veterans" (though of course I'm sure that group exists as well, but they would be more of a minority like you said).

But, if you look back to Vietnam, where most of our veterans are from, you'd see that it was mandatory, or you were incarcerated.

Of course I know this. My own father was almost drafted for Vietnam. But there are also things like the Iraq war that people feel really strongly about now, and there wasn't a draft for then. Like I said before, these are not my views, but I can still see where the people that hold them are coming from.

[j_menz]

it should be obvious that i am not referring to outliers such as hitler or those wrongly convicted.

Ah, but how do you spot them?

[chopincat]

it should be obvious that i am not referring to outliers such as hitler or those wrongly convicted.

I don't know if those wrongly convicted are necessarily outliers. A minority, yes, but not as small of one as you might think. Our criminal justice system is pretty flawed.

[cwjalex]

Ah, but how do you spot them?

you can't, not until it's too late...but i don't think it's necessary.  just because there are a few outliers doesn't justify (for me) having tax dollars be directed toward criminals' elective surgery when there are law abiding citizens suffering.  

I don't know if those wrongly convicted are necessarily outliers. A minority, yes, but not as small of one as you might think.

i used to be addicted to reading about wrongly accused stories so i'm aware of the many cases that have occurred and are still pending.  even if you double, triple, or quadruple the amount of wrongfully accused it is still an extremely small minority compared to the total amount of convictions.  even so, like i said before i don't think it justifies huge appropriations of funds to criminals when there are countless other problems.  

Our criminal justice system is pretty flawed.

yeah unfortunately.  every criminal justice system is flawed.  as long as people are flawed (which is always)  any criminal justice system will have flaws.  it's better now than it was decades ago though.  it's not that people have changed at all it's just that it's harder for corruption to go unnoticed.  video and audio recordings are everywhere.

[chopinlover01]

Out of curiosity, how old is your father? The Vietnam Draft was from 1969-1972, and he would have had to been at least 18 then, making him born in 1951 at the latest, placing him currently at around 63, if his birthday has not occured this year.

[chopincat]

it's not that people have changed at all it's just that it's harder for corruption to go unnoticed.  video and audio recordings are everywhere.

What about Eric Garner? There is literally a video of a Daniel Pantaleo strangling and killing him, and he didn't even get indicted. And his case is one of many.

Out of curiosity, how old is your father? The Vietnam Draft was from 1969-1972, and he would have had to been at least 18 then, making him born in 1951 at the latest, placing him currently at around 63, if his birthday has not occured this year.

He was born in 1955. The draft ended in 1973, when he was 18. He got a lottery number but luckily didn't end up being drafted. He knew others his age who were, though.

[cwjalex]

not familiar with that case so i can't really comment.  i don't deny that injustice exists.  i think a large part of it has to do with the jury system which i absolutely despise.

[chopinlover01]

(Huh. According to this site, it ended in December the year before: https://projectsmrj.pbworks.com/w/page/40304148/Vietnam%20draft%20rules)
Yes, the Garner case was an unfortunate case of police brutality, and they are also many more, but like Mr. Jalex said earlier, if you multiplied that number by 4 you would still have a huge minority. What we can do to stop those cases is train police differently (which, in other countries such as the UK, where they typically do not carry firearms, has generally resulted with a weaker police force that is less efficient), not keep devoting tax dollars to transgender inmates on account of a minority, especially not least when we have far more pressing matters on our hands, far more than just the retired vets. We have poverty already to deal with, and, just to name a few others, child abuse/child pornography, immigration, health care, college (what I mean is that tuition needs to be lower), and others that need to be changed, which costs money.

[chopincat]

not familiar with that case so i can't really comment.  i don't deny that injustice exists.  i think a large part of it has to do with the jury system which i absolutely despise.

Eric Garner was a black man from Staten Island. A few policemen caught him committing some small crime, I think selling unlicensed cigarettes or something like that. He was resisting arrest, so Pantaleo put him in a "chokehold" (exactly what it sounds like) which is apparently taught to police officers in their training. While in the chokehold, Garner said "I can't breathe" 11 times - someone took a video of the entire gruesome exchange and you can still find it on Youtube. Pantaleo continued to push him to the ground until he was unconscious, and he died shortly after. Despite their being video footage of homicide - a bit of a rarity - Pantaleo was not indicted by the grand jury. The case is in many ways similar to the more famous Mike Brown case (along with many other cases where white police officers killed unarmed black men and they were not even indicted, there happen to be quite a few of them), but this one was particularly despicable because there is evidence for the whole world to see, and there was not even a trial. There's been a ton of outrage about the case here in New York, but of course nothing is going of change.

[chopincat]

We have poverty already to deal with, and, just to name a few others, child abuse/child pornography, immigration, health care, college (what I mean is that tuition needs to be lower), and others that need to be changed, which costs money.

I get your point, but I don't think it's really possible to rank the importance of national issues, Everyone's going to have a different way of ranking them, in terms of both what's considered important locally and their own personal ethics.  Personally, I think it's extremely messed up that a huge portion of our population can't even trust their own police force. And that's something that people think about a lot in New York, since we've also had issues with things like stop and frisk in the past. But I understand that that might not be the top priority in, say, North Dakota.

(Huh. According to this site, it ended in December the year before: https://projectsmrj.pbworks.com/w/page/40304148/Vietnam%20draft%20rules)

That site is probably referring to when the last actual draft took place. In the next year the draft system was still in place and lottery numbers were still given out, but they did not end up being used.