Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines) page 24

Punisher, what you are being asked for, is documentation (preferably scientific studies) to back up your claims that the difference in upper body strength and lower body torque between the genders is always going to be sufficient to prevent a female from serving as a front-line soldier equally as well as any male who can be accepted to do so.

In other words the burden is on you to prove that no female is capable of meeting the same standards of fitness and strength as the least male who scrapes through the army’s tests.

Quite honestly, I don’t think that women should fight on the front lines. We have enough men dying there already. We don’t need both genders fighting, since that would cause the other side to use both genders. The only long term effect that can come of that is more dead people.

Originally posted by Camoraz:

Quite honestly, I don’t think that women should fight on the front lines. We have enough men dying there already. We don’t need both genders fighting, since that would cause the other side to use both genders. The only long term effect that can come of that is more dead people.

I think that might even be an even worse argument against than all of punisher’s twaddle.

I was putting it in a simple sentence, and I’m tired. But in all seriousness, if side A and side B had 10 000 men in each army, and side A enlisted 8 000 women, what would side B do, if it lacked men to join the army (Illogical since they wouldn’t just run out of men, I know)?

Originally posted by Camoraz:

I was putting it in a simple sentence, and I’m tired. But in all seriousness, if side A and side B had 10 000 men in each army, and side A enlisted 8 000 women, what would side B do, if it lacked men to join the army (Illogical, I know), what would they do?

Wat is your point?

Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Originally posted by Camoraz:

I was putting it in a simple sentence, and I’m tired. But in all seriousness, if side A and side B had 10 000 men in each army, and side A enlisted 8 000 women, what would side B do, if it lacked men to join the army (Illogical, I know), what would they do?

Wat is your point?

More people die. Shoulda specified that.

Equality Equality Equality
When will people understand having a same status and doing the same job are different things
A bulldozer is slower and expensive than a car but does that mean it has less of a value for the contractor?
No, it has not, but that does not mean he will compete in nascar with it

Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Equality Equality Equality
When will people understand having a same status and doing the same job are different things
A bulldozer is slower and expensive than a car but does that mean it has less of a value for the contractor?
No, it has not, but that does not mean he will compete in nascar with it

Aha, a person like I. I (& several others) make this point here on many other issues. It certainly does appear that a “certain few” are unable to see & separate particular ideas….so much so that they are very willing to deeply pervert concept like this. I have one that constantly likes to pervert MY CONCERNS to be equated as being “childishly fearful”. His implication isn’t of the nature of when ppl say: I am fearful this will come to pass. I dread this will be true. I’m quite scared will will have a bad outcome.

I’ve found that lately, the rabid right “conservatives” greatly luv to use such “loaded” words rather than use words that more correctly describe the true sentiment….hence my “boogeyman theory”: twist the truth—loudly & long enough—until the “low information” ppl take it to their bosom in fear that to do otherwise will spell doom-&-gloom for them.

I think I prefer ‘rabid’ – a word you use rather too often to demonize your ideological opponents – conservatives who can at least get to the point, than that meandering mess you just posted. What exactly is the ‘true sentiment’ of what you just said? It’s too vague and high-handed for me to make sense of it, even more than is usual with your posts.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I think I prefer ‘rabid’ – a word you use rather too often to demonize your ideological opponents – conservatives who can at least get to the point,…

Good for YOU. Good to know. AND…pot-meet-kettle. I can stoop to YOUR level and insult your manner of critique, also…..eh? YOUR “intellectual swagger” is well appreciated by ME here….lol.

…. than that meandering mess you just posted.

What exactly is the ‘true sentiment’ of what you just said? It’s too vague and high-handed for me to make sense of it, even more than is usual with your posts.

What….ya having trouble understaning what I said? Imagine that? DILLIGAS? I often find YOUR posts to be the same for me….likely for far different reasons….LOL

I also find that by asking in a less insulting manner, it’s a whooooole lot more likely that I’ll get positive feedback….should I really want it rather than merely asking a rhetorical question in order to make the insult.

Jan, I recognize the YOU are extremely knowledgeable—likely due to a likewise strong intellect—and quite well enjoy YOUR bringing it to this forum. I learn much from it.
HOWEVER, while I do enjoy the “scathing criticism” ya level at times (even to ME) for both the merit of the message and the “low quality” of the method (by the poster) of delivery, there is very little to be “learned” from it.

BUT, I am curious here: WHY DO YA DO THAT?
For “fun”?
Cuz ya’re pissed that ppl aren’t as “smart” as ya are? (<< I’m serious there…NOT being sarcastic)?
OR, much as I, are pissed because ya ppl don’t agree w/ ya? YOU have, several times, expressed (very passionate?) spleen at particular positions held by posters?

My questions aren’t rethorical “insults”….
I’ve held this curiosity for awhile now,,,
it just looked like an opportune time to ask.
Please…PLEASE respond.
Curious minds wanna know.

I think you missed the point of my post: Your earlier post made no sense at all – aside from the usual ad hominems against conservatives -, and rather than addressing it and clarifying it you did your usual beardo ranting at anyone who criticizes you.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I think I prefer ‘rabid’ – a word you use rather too often to demonize your ideological opponents – conservatives who can at least get to the point,…

Good for YOU. Good to know. AND…pot-meet-kettle. I can stoop to YOUR level and insult your manner of critique, also…..eh? YOUR “intellectual swagger” is well appreciated by ME here….lol.

…. than that meandering mess you just posted.

What exactly is the ‘true sentiment’ of what you just said? It’s too vague and high-handed for me to make sense of it, even more than is usual with your posts.

What….ya having trouble understaning what I said? Imagine that? DILLIGAS? I often find YOUR posts to be the same for me….likely for far different reasons….LOL

I also find that by asking in a less insulting manner, it’s a whooooole lot more likely that I’ll get positive feedback….should I really want it rather than merely asking a rhetorical question in order to make the insult.

Jan, I recognize the YOU are extremely knowledgeable—likely due to a likewise strong intellect—and quite well enjoy YOUR bringing it to this forum. I learn much from it.
HOWEVER, while I do enjoy the “scathing criticism” ya level at times (even to ME) for both the merit of the message and the “low quality” of the method (by the poster) of delivery, there is very little to be “learned” from it.

BUT, I am curious here: WHY DO YA DO THAT?
For “fun”?
Cuz ya’re pissed that ppl aren’t as “smart” as ya are? (<< I’m serious there…NOT being sarcastic)?
OR, much as I, are pissed because ya ppl don’t agree w/ ya? YOU have, several times, expressed (very passionate?) spleen at particular positions held by posters?

My questions aren’t rethorical “insults”….
I’ve held this curiosity for awhile now,,,
it just looked like an opportune time to ask.
Please…PLEASE respond.
Curious minds wanna know.

Dude can you use simple english or are you from 1700’s?

^he is. almost.

Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Dude can you use simple english or are you from 1700’s?

How are his posts even remotely related to the 1700s?

Anyway, are you done with the ad hominem and ready to actually respond to his points instead of avoiding them?

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

^he is. almost.

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Dude can you use simple english or are you from 1700’s?

How are his posts even remotely related to the 1700s?

Good you recognized your great great great gran father.

Anyway, are you done with the ad hominem and ready to actually respond to his points instead of avoiding them?

He is using difficult english

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

^he is. almost.

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

^he is. almost.

Good, you finally recognized your great great great grand father

Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

^he is. almost.

Good, you finally recognized your great great great grand father

NO, YOUR insult is misplaced. Tenco’s quip (and I luv the “almost”… tenco’s witty mirth is ledgendary) is about my use of common, “PROPER” English…..NOT about my being from the 1700’s,,,ergo, his gggfather. I AM old…just not that old…lol

AND, dood…man-up and accept a challenge. Learn to cope w/ variety, diversity, “nouveau-speak”…things NOT happening in the 1700’s. Well, the colonists did have to learn Native Americans’ language and that of the other countries in the New World….imagine THAT.

actually, i said “almost”, not tenco. i ask my dad all the time what life was like during the stoneage.

Originally posted by Camoraz:

More people die. Shoulda specified that.

Um…not necessarily. Just because one side does something does not mean another side will replicate it.

If there are more women in that military unit, more women will die, not more people. It might actually decrease the number of men dying. It’s a matter of math. Make sense?

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

actually, i said “almost”, not tenco. i ask my dad all the time what life was like during the stoneage.

Awwwww….crap.
A “brain fart” that probably left a “skidmark”.
Ewwwwww.

BUT, the two of ya are TWINS….right?
lol

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

^he is. almost.

Good, you finally recognized your great great great grand father

NO, YOUR insult is misplaced. Tenco’s quip (and I luv the “almost”… tenco’s witty mirth is ledgendary) is about my use of common, “PROPER” English…..NOT about my being from the 1700’s,,,ergo, his gggfather. I AM old…just not that old…lol

AND, dood…man-up and accept a challenge. Learn to cope w/ variety, diversity, “nouveau-speak”…things NOT happening in the 1700’s. Well, the colonists did have to learn Native Americans’ language and that of the other countries in the New World….imagine THAT.

Well english is not my first language and ppl try to sound sophistcated for example:-
One could say " No need for insults?"
Or " No need for ademinem"

This thread has the most circular argument I’ve ever seen…

Women are weaker than men. → In general, yes; nevertheless there are some women that are stronger than men and therefore they should be allowed to be on the frontlines. → Women are weaker than men. → Um, yes, you have said that already. Some women are stronger than some men and should be on the frontlines, as said. → Women are weaker than men. → You’ve already said that. → Women are weaker than men. → … → Women are weaker than men.

Seriously? I see no other argument for women not being on the frontlines apart from women, in general, being weaker. Can no one on that side of the argument say anything else?

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

This thread has the most circular argument I’ve ever seen…

Women are weaker than men. → In general, yes; nevertheless there are some women that are stronger than men and therefore they should be allowed to be on the frontlines. → Women are weaker than men. → Um, yes, you have said that already. Some women are stronger than some men and should be on the frontlines, as said. → Women are weaker than men. → You’ve already said that. → Women are weaker than men. → … → Women are weaker than men.

Seriously? I see no other argument for women not being on the frontlines apart from women, in general, being weaker. Can no one on that side of the argument say anything else?

Women are generally weaker than men, hence they should not be allowed to fight on front lines.
Loop close.

Good work doing exactly what I predicted you would. Now, on to the second step (something seemingly complicated for the people on your side): in general, women are weaker, yes; that, however, is outside the question, since many women are stronger than your average man. Why should a person who is weaker (an average man) have to fight in place of a stronger person (a strong woman)?

And hopefully you do not keep following the same pattern I just outlined as you have done now. Yes, we understand that your only (flawed) argument is “women are weaker than men”, can we progress from that now? Hopefully you won’t be posting for the next 20 pages the same thing again: “women are weaker than men”. Yes, you have said that already. What you have failed to do however, is listen to any replies concerning such fallacious argument.

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Good work doing exactly what I predicted you would. Now, on to the second step (something seemingly complicated for the people on your side): in general, women are weaker, yes; that, however, is outside the question, since many women are stronger than your average man. Why should a person who is weaker (an average man) have to fight in place of a stronger person (a strong woman)?

And hopefully you do not keep following the same pattern I just outlined as you have done now. Yes, we understand that your only (flawed) argument is “women are weaker than men”, can we progress from that now? Hopefully you won’t be posting for the next 20 pages the same thing again: “women are weaker than men”. Yes, you have said that already. What you have failed to do however, is listen to any replies concerning such fallacious argument.

Can you tell me how much women are stronger than men?