|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Thems fighting words! /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1733236815 Message started by WebsterMark on 12/03/24 at 06:40:15 |
|
Title: Thems fighting words! Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/24 at 06:40:15 Women in front-line combat positions? Yes or no? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by TheBabyDerp on 12/03/24 at 06:44:16 No |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Eegore on 12/03/24 at 07:42:44 What is a "front line combat position" ? Most humans thinks infantry with an M-4 pointed at the enemy and that's it. However a standard definition is position(s) closest to the area of conflict of an armed force's personnel and equipment. In the US ARMY it is called "Combat Arms" and includes infantry, field artillery, air defense artillery, aviation, armor, special forces, and combat engineers. Would Field Artillery meet the "front line combat" definition? Armor? I know plenty of Israeli women in armor units, drivers, gunners and commanders. Front-line as described by the US military? Yes. Every single known position? No. Only one's who can achieve competencies without altering the standard. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/24 at 09:57:33 Most humans thinks infantry with an M-4 pointed at the enemy and that's it. Let’s go with that definition. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Eegore on 12/03/24 at 10:47:05 Let’s go with that definition. Yes. I am ok with voluntary female casualties on the battlefield. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by thumperclone on 12/03/24 at 10:55:03 yes and draft if needed |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by JOG on 12/03/24 at 13:14:39 The frontline is made up of individuals. Together they are a team. You want your team to lose? Put Team Members in it who aren't physically able to drag their teammates to safety. Load it with weak people. Stop thinking IDENTITY and start thinking ABILITY. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by zevenenergie on 12/03/24 at 13:29:14 I den titty? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Eegore on 12/03/24 at 13:45:03 The frontline is made up of individuals. Together they are a team. You want your team to lose? Put Team Members in it who aren't physically able to drag their teammates to safety. Load it with weak people. Stop thinking IDENTITY and start thinking ABILITY. So you are addressing if they lowered the standards correct? I'm not sure Webstermark is questioning that as much as he is questioning that if a female - that has passed all the same requirements a male did - should not be there based exclusively off her gender. Frontline with varied standards is a totally different discussion. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by JOG on 12/03/24 at 14:16:03 And women simply are not up to hanging with men. Men are different from women. Women are different from men. Even If they manage to get through the physical tests, women are Not Warriors. Look at the entire history of the world. It's only Obvious. But don't let that get in your way. Some stUff just Is. Men don't ever get pregnant. That just IS. Women are not suited for War. When the women are in The Fight, it's because if they Don't get in the fight, they are going to die as soon as the men defending them are killed. Think settlers/Indians. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/24 at 14:44:33 Yes, should women be in combat positions? Yes or no? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by JOG on 12/03/24 at 15:20:33 I'm sorry if I was unclear. No.. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/24 at 04:58:56 The correct answer by the way is no. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by thumperclone on 12/05/24 at 05:11:31 I served with women just like the men there are capable ones and those who are not |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Eegore on 12/05/24 at 05:20:16 The correct answer by the way is no. I assume actual soldiers wouldn't know any better than those safe at home? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by MnSpring on 12/05/24 at 07:07:05 Used to be: A job required you to carry 200 pounds 200 feet. There was no, are you male or female, are you over or less than 120 pounds, are you over or less than 5 feet tall. It was, Simply can you do that job ! It is the coddling, and the ‘WOKE’ , socialists, that are changing things. So today a 120 pound, 5 foot tall person has to carry 50 pounds. While a 6-3 tall, 250 pound has to carry 200 pounds. It is the same mentality, that pushes the, “Participation Trophy” So my answer/opinion is: NO if you can't do the job. YES if you can do the job. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/24 at 08:05:18 0727252D3027420 wrote:
No and that has nothing to do with why no is the correct answer. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Eegore on 12/05/24 at 08:07:53 No and that has nothing to do with why no is the correct answer. Isn't that kind of like saying humans who ride motorcycles wouldn't know who is qualified to ride motorcycles more than humans that have never been on a bike before? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/24 at 09:05:25 No. The truth is men and women are different, and men are the ones who need to fight to protect their nation, their society, their families, their wife, their children. I certainly agree there is a percentage of women capable of performing on par with the average man and there are certainly unique women who perform better than many men. But that’s not my point. I’m saying there’s a bigger issue when we blend the roles of men and women and while there are certainly many situations where the roles are completely interchangeable, this is not one of them. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Eegore on 12/05/24 at 13:59:04 If infantry soldiers are ok with women who meet the same standards and only the same standards with zero lowering of any standard at any time at any point in known time or space, if those soldiers and their operational command are getting the acceptable results is it still unacceptable? If so then it is due to a psychological reason of some kind correct? Since the physical performance outcomes are the same without detriment to success, then the issue is ethical maybe? Similar to child labor, it works, often times better, but it is typically ethically challenged. Again this only applies to infantry only, not the standard definition for front line performance. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by WebsterMark on 12/06/24 at 05:13:08 My answer is again: I’m saying there’s a bigger issue when we blend the roles of men and women and while there are certainly many situations where the roles are completely interchangeable, this is not one of them. We are turning over thousands of years of DNA-enforced behavior and pretending we can flip that 180degress in a single generation and pretend this enforced-evolution is the right path. I’m saying, or rather asking, or perhaps suggesting, it might not be. I’m saying those in charge of these decisions are not, or are incapable of, seeing a bigger picture. To steal your line and a line that is legitimate in this case: this is an opinion. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by JOG on 12/06/24 at 06:09:35 Gettin Stuff to the front lines is a challenge. The more Stuff the troops need makes it more difficult. Just Men need fewer line items. The Rare female that passes the Physical tests still doesn't make her a warrior. Females don't belong on the front lines. The entire history of the world agrees. Finding an exception doesn't erase the Normal. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Serowbot on 12/06/24 at 07:15:50 Boudicca :-? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Eegore on 12/06/24 at 11:16:01 Gettin Stuff to the front lines is a challenge. The more Stuff the troops need makes it more difficult. Just Men need fewer line items. The Rare female that passes the Physical tests still doesn't make her a warrior. Females don't belong on the front lines. The entire history of the world agrees. Finding an exception doesn't erase the Normal. I understand the logistics of it. So far it hasn't been an exceptional issue getting supplies for women, but then again front lines isn't only infantry, so in that regard maybe if they somehow isolated modern infantry supply chains we could get a more accurate number. I also have seen examples on this forum where one or two events are supposed to supersede the Normal, so I'm not sure math is the deciding factor. This appears to be a combination of cost, ethics, and emotions. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Serowbot on 12/06/24 at 11:28:10 Women eat less :-? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by WebsterMark on 12/07/24 at 03:51:45 It has nothing to do with performance or supplies or anything like that. Women should not be on the front lines, as we’ve previously described front lines. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Eegore on 12/07/24 at 10:22:19 Women should not be on the front lines, as we’ve previously described front lines. But why? No definable reasons besides gender? I look at it like a job interview, if someone asks why a candidate is not hirable I would articulate more than "She should not be employed here", I'd have some specifics. I guess it would be, no women, no additional reasons why. Correct? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by JOG on 12/07/24 at 10:41:53 Men and women are different. I'm pretty sure in the entire history of the world If women had been discovered to be equally able to hunt,fight,do it all, Like a Man, evidence of that would already exist. It doesn't. Sometimes just looking at how things have been, is a clue. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Eegore on 12/07/24 at 11:56:17 Men and women are different. I'm pretty sure in the entire history of the world If women had been discovered to be equally able to hunt,fight,do it all, Like a Man, evidence of that would already exist. It doesn't. Sometimes just looking at how things have been, is a clue. Ok but Webstermark is clear this applies only to women who can do everything in the infantry equal to men. There's not a lot but of those few, they still aren't considered viable candidates. It's like saying short men (lets say 5' 5") aren't typically able to compete at the same level as tall men in basketball, but of those few short men that can, they still shouldn't play basketball. To leverage all other men who can't play basketball worth a sh!t doesn't address the ones that can. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by thumperclone on 12/07/24 at 12:48:21 [quote author=1A2F3C243F383C2F395D0 link=1733236815/15#21 date=1733494175]Gettin Stuff to the front lines is a challenge. The more Stuff the troops need makes it more difficult. Just Men need fewer line items. The Rare female that passes the Physical tests still doesn't make her a warrior. Females don't belong on the front lines. The entire history of the world agrees. Finding an exception doesn't erase the Normal. "Women have fought in combat roles in different societies throughout history" WIKIPEDA |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by JOG on 12/07/24 at 13:00:11 And how did it work out? WHY did women find themselves in combat? Were they running out of men? And, which societies? What wars? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by thumperclone on 12/07/24 at 13:48:17 6E5B48504B4C485B4D290 wrote:
Too many examples for me to type, look up: HISTORY OF WOMEN IN COMBAT |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Eegore on 12/07/24 at 16:47:31 Too many examples for me to type, look up: HISTORY OF WOMEN IN COMBAT None of that is relevant. Today's standard is the only one we can measure and apply. Also even that is of no application to this thread because Webstermark is indicating even those women that can fight effectively, should not. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by thumperclone on 12/07/24 at 22:02:21 4464666E7364010 wrote:
opinion does not change fact |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by WebsterMark on 12/08/24 at 04:02:52 0D2D2F273A2D480 wrote:
Correct. It doesn’t matter if some woman are fully capable. Like I said, it’s has nothing to do with performance. Although I think the likely negative influence on overall unit performance and cohesion is a topic for discussion, that’s not the reason why. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Eegore on 12/08/24 at 12:07:12 that’s not the reason why. What is the reason why? I hear there is a reason, but what is it? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by thumperclone on 12/08/24 at 14:54:42 pseudo-Christian morals |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Eegore on 12/08/24 at 15:50:21 pseudo-Christian morals Could be. If so it's an ethics issue. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by WebsterMark on 12/09/24 at 03:33:44 Society functions better when men take on certain responsibilities. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by thumperclone on 12/09/24 at 04:55:11 6D5F58494E5F48775B48513A0 wrote:
society functions better when women are not treated like second class citizens |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by Serowbot on 12/09/24 at 07:28:12 1C2E29383F2E39062A39204B0 wrote:
How do we know that? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by JOG on 12/09/24 at 08:17:59 6D7B6C71697C716A1E0 wrote:
How do we know that?[/quote] If you're old enough to remember the sixties you know. |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by thumperclone on 12/09/24 at 09:10:11 1D283B23383F3B283E5A0 wrote:
How do we know that?[/quote] If you're old enough to remember the sixties you know.[/quote] examples?? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by JOG on 12/09/24 at 11:43:46 Like im gonna TRY to get lefties to admit what they don't want to see? |
|
Title: Re: Thems fighting words! Post by thumperclone on 12/09/24 at 12:34:14 162330283334302335510 wrote:
so a baseless assertion again!! |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |