#200!!
women in combat
- Thread starter $tinkle
- Start date
I've not read a single response in this thread....but this must be one GODDAMN interesting thread to have gone on this long.
You read your own, you idiot. Unless you're blind...if you are, I apologize...
Not only am I blind but I have a stephen hawking voice synthesizer....you jerk....
bet the 2 of you are pissed is has the accent set to 'american'
i was pointing out discrimination. we both agree it's necessary for ex-cons, but not for women (again, in combat roles).
add to that list people who quote withnail & i, especially uncle monty
Have you heard of WWII? How long did that last again...? Many people fought on the front through much of the conflict with only brief respites and rotations off the line.
You can bring food to the people in the foxholes. That's part of what everyone else aside from the infantry in the military does.
Will anyone sit in one foxhole for a year? Probably not, but you dig them wherever you go, and when you're squatting in an abandoned building or some other improvised living, not much changes vis a vis the social dynamic.
In Iraq now, it's very different from this sort of situation...we're rotating troops in and out of theater (although it's been discussed to go to a WWII model) and they're often working out of FOBs with amenities available in between missions. This is dangerous, because it makes people think that this is how war will always be from now on.
But we have to prepare for the worst and can't build our status quo on 'typical' or 'modern' circumstances, because war can and will descend to the most basic, inhuman, desperate level when we don't want it to, for timeframes imposed by necessity. If you don't think that way, you have no business opining about the military.
If I had never spoken to MikeD before, I still would not have drawn your conclusions. I think you, and the couple who have drawn the same conclusions, are reading what you want to read, because it's easier to label him a wanna-be rapist or some low form of life than it is to actually absorb, understand and try to refute his points.
Double-Yew Tee Eff?!
A) you honestly and truly believe that I'm somehow bitter about some stupid custom title that got duplicated? What possible reason do you have to believe that?
B) whatever "record in dealing with [you]" you're referring to, since the subject apparently was our mutual custom title, you can rest assured it was entirely in jest. There were a couple light hearted threads in the Lounge about it but none of it was to be taken seriously. I honestly have no idea what you might be referring to.
It is the great custom title conspiracy. I think OMGF's tin foil hat is on too tight, or does he prefer a lead infused hemp beanie?
So you support child labor and children soldiers then correct? Children have been shown to be highly effective in combat, even more effective when fighting adults as they have a predisposition to not shoot children. Therefore, by your logic, since they can do, and do well, they should be. Therefore you should support that as well.
See what I did there...
You are equivocating.
That's like saying "pro-life" people aren't anti-abortion in a way though, isn't it?
Look, he probably didn't mean what he said the way it came across, but substitute white and black for men and women and you will understand what I saw; that whites can't work with blacks unless they get to go home and blow off some steam.
But, they weren't in foxholes indefinitely or for years. You do a mission, you move out, get some respite, then go back for another mission. You make it sound as if someone is sitting in a foxhole for years on end with bullets whizzing overhead and no movement or anything else. That's simply not realistic.
And, allowing stress to build up until the breaking point is dangerous too. Soldiering is a dangerous job (or should I say warfighting?)
First of all, if we want to prepare for the worst, we don't want to exclude people for spurious reasons. I think you are shooting yourself in the foot. Preparing for the worst means you get the best people in line, not the best men only. Second, once again you allude to women not being able to do the job when the chips are down because why? Women have survival instincts too. Don't forget that.
Is it possible for you to post something without putting words in someone's mouth and then drawing asinine conclusions from it? "Substitute black and white"... "pretend you said gay instead of woman"... it never ends dude. Just f*cking admit you don't have a leg to stand on and go start spewing your drivel on some other thread for a while.
Jesus christ. I mean exactly what I said. Your tireless droning on this point works rhetorically, but not realistically. Substituting words is, first of all, a diversion from anything I ever said...words have meanings, and they're not interchangable. Especially in this case.
I'm not arguing points of culture or cosmetics. I'm arguing points of sex...race has NO RELEVANCE to this discussion, as much as you'd like it to, because it helps you make a quick and poignant, although ultimately substance-less point. The analogy is there, but it's a red herring.
I like to **** black women. I like to **** white women. I don't like to **** white men or black men.
I'm not arguing points of culture or cosmetics. I'm arguing points of sex...race has NO RELEVANCE to this discussion, as much as you'd like it to, because it helps you make a quick and poignant, although ultimately substance-less point. The analogy is there, but it's a red herring.
I like to **** black women. I like to **** white women. I don't like to **** white men or black men.
Believe what you want. I don't care.
I'm basing it off the comments, and no I did not think they were in jest, especially since they were brought on by DRB who has shown nothing but contempt for me to the point where I've had to send him PMs to ask what I did to offend him so (which he ignored.) When you were jumping on the pile, it was not readily apparent, nor was it this time.
If I don't have a leg to stand on, then why was I able to find studies to support my position?
And, it is perfectly valid to ask someone to substitute in words to give an example. The way the statements were phrased were sexist, just like they would be seen as racist if he were talking about race instead.
Are you intentionally missing the point? If I said that all women are weak and you didn't see a problem with it, but someone else did, then said substitute black for women so that you would understand, would that be invalid? Of course not. It's for demonstration sake.
No, it was used for demonstration so that you know why what you said was offensive and sexist. Drawing analogy (for the millionth time) was my way of explanation. Did I say it had anything to do with race? No.
Now, calm down and take the context of what I said and have now explained three times.
No, because it's already been answered.
but not female children, right?
tee-hee
Same meaning right?
So, posting studies that support my position leaves me with no credibility? I thought you valued logic and evidence?
Lame.
You thought this piece of absurdity was an attack on you? Over four words appearing under our avatars on an internet message board?
Trust me, nobody, not even DRB was taking that thread seriously.
Whatever dude. You know what's been said, and you know the history between DRB and me.
While you're trolling the internets to find pictures, find some answers to the questions I've posed that you have yet to answer.
Not when said studies are contradicted by actual experience.
You've absolutely got to be kidding? Is your skin so f'ing thin that my ignoring your PM has left you feeling vulnerable to attack here? Or that I started a thread about a duplicated custom title (that degregated into discussions about bbq and MMike's sexual preferences)? Is Westy part of the "We hate OMGF club" as well?
I didn't respond to your PM because I didn't see the point. Much like this thread I find you to be wholely and completely incapable of grasping those views, and the reasons for them, that differ even in the slightest from your own. Its amazing how quickly you will roll into passive aggressive personal attacks when really pushed or that there might be just a chance that you maybe wrong.
It's the internet, come on man sack up for God's sake. Oh sorry you don't believe in God, so just sack up.
and you are thinking laterally.
since ex-cons have paid their debt to society, why should they be prevented from military service? we both would be likely to give reasons which would square w/ why the military reserves the right to not hire them, and does not violate anyone's human rights, while it is very much discrimination.
i'll try to be plain, direct, and complete: there is 'good' discrimination. you & i practice it constantly & unwittingly. hopefully, we get it 'wrong' less frequently.
btw, still haven't strayed from my original position as to why i believe women shouldn't be in combat roles, but this thread has reinforced my discrimination w/ a few more reasons.
i'm pretty sure OMGF has rights to that phrase, & some royalties are due
green eggs & ham much?
Out of the three studies that were cited, I found nothing about the effectiveness boost that the GCF would receive, so it's kind of all semantic at this point. I also found nothing saying that, under highly stressful situations, men and women would interact in the same general way that men and men would interact in. With MikeD's real world experience to go off of (and my logical conclusions), I'd say that equates to more people dying while this proposed integration happens.
I found these findings (heh...) troubling due this reason:
1.) People dying is no easy thing to take. Do you think the number of American service people dying in Iraq right now is ok? Do you want to take a risk on more people dying? Are you going to be the one notifying families?
When you stretch people to the breaking point (i.e. combat), wierd things happen that can't be studied, and put in a report, until they happen. Would you like to be in the intial test phase to see how it comes out? Would you like MG to be in the initial test phase? MG, would you volunteer to be in this intial test group with the knowledge that you'd be on the front lines where one small, misplaced smile could leave you in a black plastic bag waiting for the long flight home?
It's all fine to talk about it with the knowledge that you'll never have to do anything about it, but quite another when you start opening your mind to all the opportunities to f*ck up.
I found these findings (heh...) troubling due this reason:
1.) People dying is no easy thing to take. Do you think the number of American service people dying in Iraq right now is ok? Do you want to take a risk on more people dying? Are you going to be the one notifying families?
When you stretch people to the breaking point (i.e. combat), wierd things happen that can't be studied, and put in a report, until they happen. Would you like to be in the intial test phase to see how it comes out? Would you like MG to be in the initial test phase? MG, would you volunteer to be in this intial test group with the knowledge that you'd be on the front lines where one small, misplaced smile could leave you in a black plastic bag waiting for the long flight home?
It's all fine to talk about it with the knowledge that you'll never have to do anything about it, but quite another when you start opening your mind to all the opportunities to f*ck up.
Alright, we'll call it a draw.
I thought we could've at least made it to #300 before calling it a day...guess we must be slippin'...damn.