Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 116: Procedural Drama

(+) Yeah! (+)

dammit Kupo I was gonna say that.
---

trump repeatedly insulting mika brzezinski's intelligence is absolutely bullying.

not all of his harsh attacks are bullying, but he definitely crosses the line from time to time.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Women shouldn't be fighting wars for the same reason we save women and children first. It baffles me that anyone is arguing otherwise.

Women are quite capable of combat, the same really can't be said of children. Don't misunderstand, I don't want anyone fighting in a war. Innocent people die and it's tragic. I just feel that if a woman voluntarily wants to enter a combat role, she should be permitted. Otherwise, what message are we sending? That she's "too weak" to protect her country? That men can lay their lives down for what they believe in, but woman have to stick to non combat roles?
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Women shouldn't be fighting wars for the same reason we save women and children first. It baffles me that anyone is arguing otherwise.

What
---

I'm glad we have actual military people like Tony and FFD to openly mock non-military people.
---

Not sure if facetious.

But I have my reasons for doing it.
---

I thought it was more "mocking non-military people who act like they know better than everyone else" rather than non military period.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

I thought it was more "mocking non-military people who act like they know better than everyone else" rather than non military period.

It is.
---

I think rock is being genuine and its just difficult to recognize
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I'm glad we have actual military people like Tony and FFD to openly mock non-military people.

I have three aunts who joined the Air Force, plus my mother, and another who joined the army. All my uncles joined the army or the marines. Both grandfathers joined the marines and fought in Korea, one eventually became a drill sergeant. Most people in my generation of the family were in the military, and are now either cops or state troopers here in NJ (as a total side note, it's nice to never get traffic tickets). I tried joining myself, but was told no because of ADHD. It wasn't for lack of trying. Most of my family thinks I'm some useless idiot because of it, but that's besides the point. I didn't actually serve, but I'm a phone call away from having a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about with it, and I imagine many other people here are in the same boat.

Not a single member of my family, including the people who vote democrat no matter what, thinks women should be on front lines. It's pure hatred of women to think otherwise in my view. This includes opinions from women in my family who could beat the shit out of 99% of the men I've ever met and COULD pass those marine corps PT tests. What kind of value system puts women on the front lines of a war? There's a reason the men fight and the women and children were all saved first historically. They're the ones who keep society going, and really at the end of the day they're the ones we're fighting for and defending.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

Women shouldn't be fighting wars for the same reason we save women and children first. It baffles me that anyone is arguing otherwise.

What

---

Ulti.

If a woman says she wants to be on the front lines, and is physically capable of such, who are you to tell her no?
---

There's a reason the men fight and the women and children were all saved first historically.

that reason is "patriarchy"
---

The reason that if you have to go down with the ship, you don't want to hear a small 8-year-old boy screaming loudly in your ear. A Nord's last thoughts should be of home, not some snot-nose brat.
---

So logically speaking... if women are the ones who keep society going, then men do not? Because it's fine to send them to the frontlines would that mean that they're of lesser "value"?

Because I personally thought that women were not permitted to fight in the military because society believed them to be weaker in a fight. If that's proven to not be the case, then...


And I thought wars were fought for the sake of the country. Not simply "women and children", though they're part of said country. If a woman willingly chooses to fight, and we say "No, because you're a woman" then... what is that exactly?

If someone is willing to forgo protection for the sake of others, and they are denied the freedom of what to do with their own life... then what more are they than a trophy?

We're never going to get this "equality" thing down if we keep writing women off as "vulnerable" over anything else, and men as "expendable" over anything else.
---

I knew a female marine when I was in Pensacola who could destroy pretty much everyone in my class.
---

The military is not a social experiment. I'm just dropping it now because this chat is clearly pointless.

I got nothing but love for you guys and I get where you're coming from, but that goes two ways. Not wanting women to suffer the horrors of war can be disagreed with, but it doesn't make me some jerk. If it were up to me there'd be no bloated defense budget, but that's a different chat entirely.
---

I mean, if the military wasn't a social experiment, explain propaganda.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

I mean, if the military wasn't a social experiment, explain propaganda.

I can make the case for Edward Bernays being one of the worst human beings in the history of this planet.
---

Who said it was a social experiment? We're just saying if a woman wants to pick up a gun and kill people for her country, there shouldn't be an issue. Assuming she can physically keep up with the rest of of her unit.
---

Telling people you think you know better than them what they should do with their lives is one of the top three jerkiest things you can do to somebody, right up there with setting them on fire for shits and giggles and telling them their favorite TV show sucks.
---

dowolf posted...

Telling people you think you know better than them what they should do with their lives is one of the top three jerkiest things you can do to somebody, right up there with setting them on fire for shits and giggles and telling them their favorite TV show sucks.

The Big Bang Theory is trash and much like racism, I won't tolerate it in my presence.
---

Ultii posted...

The military is not a social experiment. I'm just dropping it now because this chat is clearly pointless.

I got nothing but love for you guys and I get where you're coming from, but that goes two ways. Not wanting women to suffer the horrors of war can be disagreed with, but it doesn't make me some jerk. If it were up to me there'd be no bloated defense budget, but that's a different chat entirely.

I don't want women to suffer the horrors of war anymore than you do. I also don't want men to suffer the horrors of war.

It's not about that. It's about not telling women what they can or can't do.
---

dowolf posted...

Telling people you think you know better than them what they should do with their lives is one of the top three jerkiest things you can do to somebody, right up there with setting them on fire for shits and giggles and telling them their favorite TV show sucks.

That's a leftist candyland belief. Not everyone can do anything.

Sorry, but I'm never making an NFL roster or designing computer software.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

The Big Bang Theory is trash and much like racism, I won't tolerate it in my presence.

That's fine. Individuals who like The Big Bang Theory aren't people.
---

I want to clear something up about the whole trans in the military.

It isn't just the member saying they are trans and then being considered the gender they identify as. The member makes that claim, then they are subjected to repeated psychiatric evaluations to determine whether or not the member is genuine. Then the member goes through the whole gender reassignment, and once it is started, there are no half steps. If a "male" member claims they are trans and identify as female and makes it past the evals, guess what, by the end they will be female. This isn't some oh I want lesser standards or something on a whim; the evals take several months.

And as far as trans members being in or being in combat roles? Or for that matter females being in combat roles? I've known women who could kick the ass of pretty much any average male. I've known women I'd much rather have in my squad than your average male. They are not uncommon. I don't have any personal experience with trans members, but the same should apply. Most of the arguments I see against this are from people who have never served a day in their fucking lives trying to dictate the way the military is run.

tldr: If you can meet the standards, you should be able to fill whatever job you want regardless of your gender or sexual orientation. Fuck anyone who says different.
---

Ultii posted...

dowolf posted...

Telling people you think you know better than them what they should do with their lives is one of the top three jerkiest things you can do to somebody, right up there with setting them on fire for shits and giggles and telling them their favorite TV show sucks.

That's a leftist candyland belief. Not everyone can do anything.

Sorry, but I'm never making an NFL roster or designing computer software.

Yeah, but that's your own fault. You're literally choosing to not be successful in those fields.
---

Ultii posted...

Sorry, but I'm never making an NFL roster or designing computer software.

That's because of your physical and mental limits. Not because you have a dick instead of a vagina. A literal inability.

What are the requirements to pick up a gun and shoot people for the sake of your country and the people living in it?
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Ultii posted...

The military is not a social experiment. I'm just dropping it now because this chat is clearly pointless.

I got nothing but love for you guys and I get where you're coming from, but that goes two ways. Not wanting women to suffer the horrors of war can be disagreed with, but it doesn't make me some jerk. If it were up to me there'd be no bloated defense budget, but that's a different chat entirely.

I don't want women to suffer the horrors of war anymore than you do. I also don't want men to suffer the horrors of war.

It's not about that. It's about not telling women what they can or can't do.

Women shouldn't be fighting against men in MMA and it's a probably a bad idea to have a 110 pound female NFL linebacker.

Wow I am clearly the worst human being ever.
---

Ultii posted...

dowolf posted...

Telling people you think you know better than them what they should do with their lives is one of the top three jerkiest things you can do to somebody, right up there with setting them on fire for shits and giggles and telling them their favorite TV show sucks.

That's a leftist candyland belief. Not everyone can do anything.

Sorry, but I'm never making an NFL roster or designing computer software.

Ulti, what you are describing is more akin to telling someone who graduated top of her class in computer science that she can't design computer software because she's a woman, and women shouldn't be designing code because a) historically, most software engineers have been men; and b) then the male engineers wouldn't be able to hang Playboy centerfolds in their offices.
---

SgtSphynx posted...

tldr: If you can meet the standards, you should be able to fill whatever job you want regardless of your gender or sexual orientation. Fuck anyone who says different.

I mean, this is literally it. I don't understand thinking otherwise.
---

Ultii posted...

it's a probably a bad idea to have a 110 pound female NFL linebacker.

It's also bad to have a 110 pound male NFL linebacker, isn't it?

https://www.gobigrecruiting.com/recruiting101/football/positional_guidelines/linebacker

I don't pretend to be too knowledgeable about sports but GoogleFu says a linebacker should weight 200+ pounds.

110 is the disqualifying factor, not the gender.
---

Ultii posted...

If it were up to me there'd be no bloated defense budget, but that's a different chat entirely.

fortunately "GOAT trump" is doing something about th-...oh.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

110 is the disqualifying factor, not the gender.

QFT
---

FFDragon posted...

SgtSphynx posted...

tldr: If you can meet the standards, you should be able to fill whatever job you want regardless of your gender or sexual orientation. Fuck anyone who says different.

I mean, this is literally it. I don't understand thinking otherwise.

Men and women are not physically equal outside of outliers and the marines literally proved that mixed gender units perform worse than all male. The end.

From what I'm reading in the study, the marines weren't cherry picking. They used some badass ladies in that field study.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Ultii posted...

If it were up to me there'd be no bloated defense budget, but that's a different chat entirely.

fortunately "GOAT trump" is doing something about th-...oh.

This and the lack of tax reform are my two big issues with him. We would have been a lot better off with Rand Paul.
---

Ultii posted...

Men and women are not physically equal outside of outliers and the marines literally proved that mixed gender units perform worse than all male. The end.

Actually, not only did the mixed gender unit outperform the male unit on several key benchmarks -- including unit cohesion! -- once you remove the women who were physically weaker and should not have been participating in the test (and would be kept out by the benchmarks), almost every other negative disappears. That's why that study was roundly criticized when it was first released.
---

Ultii posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Ultii posted...

The military is not a social experiment. I'm just dropping it now because this chat is clearly pointless.

I got nothing but love for you guys and I get where you're coming from, but that goes two ways. Not wanting women to suffer the horrors of war can be disagreed with, but it doesn't make me some jerk. If it were up to me there'd be no bloated defense budget, but that's a different chat entirely.

I don't want women to suffer the horrors of war anymore than you do. I also don't want men to suffer the horrors of war.

It's not about that. It's about not telling women what they can or can't do.

Women shouldn't be fighting against men in MMA and it's a probably a bad idea to have a 110 pound female NFL linebacker.

Wow I am clearly the worst human being ever.

I'm not saying you're a bad person for this, jeeze.

Limiting people in roles based on actual physical qualifications is totally reasonable, but what you were talking about earlier with keeping women off the frontline was sounding less about that and more about infantilizing them.
---

"whoops"
---

Dark Young Link posted...

What are the requirements to pick up a gun and shoot people for the sake of your country and the people living in it?

Don't you know guns are designed to be fired by a penis?
---

I'm reading on CNN of all places that this doesn't change anything and that this is just the answer after a long review process -- 15k people aren't getting kicked out of the military since they aren't exactly claiming "open transgender" as is.

Phone is being dumb, can't copy the link. Just go to the politics board and look at the 480 post topic.
---

That's a lie until you post the link to the CNN article

Your phone is not being so dumb that it can't copy/paste an URL
---

What was the claim?
---

Ultii posted...

I'm reading on CNN of all places that this doesn't change anything and that this is just the answer after a long review process -- 15k people aren't getting kicked out of the military since they aren't exactly claiming "open transgender" as is.

Phone is being dumb, can't copy the link. Just go to the politics board and look at the 480 post topic.

Typical Ulti lie

EDIT: Specifically referring to the first line and the second paragraph

That it may not actually change anything could be true since it may never actually be applied the way Trump wants it to be
---

I'm actually reading on MSNBC that Hillary is admitting to conspiring with the Russians to get Trump the win and that both she and Putin are going before a war crimes tribunal in Geneva.
---

Skimmed the topic on the politics board. Didn't see any CNN article, perhaps I missed it.

But I did see this.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html

The limited research on the effects of foreign military policies indicates little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness. Commanders noted that the policies had benefits for all service members by creating a more inclusive and diverse force.

Policy changes to open more roles to women and to allow gay and lesbian personnel to serve openly in the U.S. military have similarly had no significant effect on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness.

Also funny thing about Trump's decision...

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/890216179339595776

If we're talking about CNN.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

War is barbaric. Period. A man being on the frontlines shouldn't make a difference between a woman or transgendered.

DYL, I know you are speaking in good faith, but please don't use the word "transgendered." It makes it sound like it's something that happened to them and not something they just are.

https://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender
---

Did Ulti literally just flip from "Women shouldn't be in on the front lines because they're the future" to "Women shouldn't be on the front lines because they're inferior to men" in like, two posts.

That was fast.
---

He's right in that they were in a year long review process, but that was supposed to be on how to take in new recruits. Not whether to allow new recruits at all.
---

FFDragon posted...

He's right in that they were in a year long review process, but that was supposed to be on how to take in new recruits. Not whether to allow new recruits at all.

Right; best case scenario is that he just didn't understand what he had just read
---