22 Apr 09
Originally posted by FMFRSMA1234, please also note the correct way to communicate. "Many men are just not suited to the task of avoiding war." not all men. not all men are bloodthirsty brutes. and there would be less wars if more women were involved in the decision making processes, not "if there were only women coz women are so emotional and mushy that they will rather embroider with the enemy than kill them"
There's plenty of evidence and informed speculation to suggest that there would be distinctly less wars for males to fight if more women were incorporated into 'male' decision making processes. Many men are just not suited to the task of avoiding war.
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziBull.
but your words do not need twisting. it is stereotypical thinking and therefore is wrong.
some women are not as strong as some men. period. not all women are weak. and not all women are strong. and it doesn't even take strength to carry a rifle and shoot someone at 100 meters away. it takes simply skill and determination. willpower to do what they think ...[text shortened]... l even if it is positive. "all blacks have huge schlongs" "all jews are successful bankers"
women are simply not suited to war, simple as
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziHave you been smoking something ?
RSMA1234, please also note the correct way to communicate. "Many men are just not suited to the task of avoiding war." not all men. not all men are bloodthirsty brutes. and there would be less wars if more women were involved in the decision making processes, not "if there were only women coz women are so emotional and mushy that they will rather embroider with the enemy than kill them"
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziOk, you obviously don't understand, or is too much of a dumbass to understand what I meant.
[b][b]yes you are saying that mothers shouldn't have jobs.
oh really? when did I say that?[/b]
you implied it.
"well, if they're mothers they shouldn't be there. "
this is what you said. now if you think that this sentence is equivalent to "well, if they're fathers they shouldn't be there." then the discussion is over, i fully agree with you and ...[text shortened]... your pie-hole are ammo. be careful what ammo you give me and your fellow debaters.[/b]
I meant that a father should go to war if the child's mother is taking care of the child.
And, a mother could go to war if the husband is at home taking care of the child.
Regardless of who goes to war, one of the parents should stay at home.
Personally I think it should be the mother, because a mother is irreplaceable, the love of a mother is very important for a healthy upbringing.
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by Zahlanziyou implied it. i know it was unintentional. but you implied it. by removing temptation from the soldiers you are basically saying "i am too lazy to adress the real issue, so i am gonna deny a group of people the right to equal treatment and the right to defend their country just so the fragile animals wouldn't be tempted"
you implied it. i know it was unintentional. but you implied it. by removing temptation from the soldiers you are basically saying "i am too lazy to adress the real issue, so i am gonna deny a group of people the right to equal treatment and the right to defend their country just so the fragile animals wouldn't be tempted"
like i said that is no way tot ...[text shortened]... d, the replacements will have to be brought from where? your idea is great!
Rubbish, show me where I have even implied that I don't think women should be able to do the same tasks as men. You simply jumped to conclusions and assumed that my suggestion of segregation in units also meant separation in the nature of tasks.
I'd also like to note that while you are trying to back me into defending all female units, I have also given the alternative of units with enough women so they can look after one another, so men and women serving in the same units. How does that mesh with your idea that I want women in the same role as men.
like i said that is no way tot treat a problem. "Treat" shouldn't even be used here because you are not treating the problem you are postponing it.
will you remove temptation forever? what happens when those soldiers get home? place them in a male environment so that they are not tempted to rape or sexual harass their fellow workers?
"Were talking about armies in combat zones, lots of young man under lots of stress who haven't had sex in months."
there you go again. you talk as if it is not their fault they give in to their animalistic urges. that they will inevitably give in. that if they don't rape their fellow soldiers they will rape the iraqi girls, or their male fellow soldiers or if enough time had passed, a sheep. get it through your noggin. they are responsible for anything they do. they should be educated, psychically evaluated, educated. and if that fails, severely punished. can you protect anyone everywhere all the time?
Here I'll start with the second paragraph, and open my reply with the same word : RUBBISH. I have not said, nor will I ever say it is not their fault if they rape women. What I am saying, and it is a big difference, that under those circumstances it will happen, the numbers prove me right. Education and psychical evaluation will help, but I doubt it will bring that number of 30% raped back to any "acceptable" levels. (Of course no rape is acceptable, by acceptable level I mean the level where I would choose these rapes over a form of segregation, of which I am no fan, but at the moment view as the lesser of 2 evils.)
Now for the first paragraph, I've told you that I believe soldiers are more likely to rape because of the specific circumstances in combat zones. So once they get back home, this extra risk falls away, so there is no reason you should assume I'm advocating the same measures in a far less risky environment.
A second reason why I am not advocating this in a civilian environment is a reason you'll maybe like less, but I'll give anyway. In a civilian environment rapes might be decreased by say, barring women to walk through dark places when they're alone. We don't however, because we (rightly) value the freedom of to go where she wants to go. A women in the army doesn't have that freedom. She has to join the unit that the army assigns here to, just like any other soldier. If the reason the army assigns her to a unit is that it's an all female unit where she'll be safer, then that reason is as good as any other. In short, the army has the right to tell a soldier what to do, and if the reason for a command is that they are concerned for her safety, then she has to obey even though she'd rather like the fame and glory she'd get from being in a particular non-female unit.
the lock on mah door doesn't compare. by placing a lock on my door i am not denying the thief the right to be in mah home. by placing a lock on my door i am not moving away from the neighbourhood. and i am not preventing anything, i am making harder for the burglar to enter. your lock argument compares with the knives the women were carrying. to which i say kudos
By segregation I'm not denying women the right to do every task the military has to offer. I do not advocate removing women from the army. It's not preventing anything, I'm making it harder for the women to get raped. See, I can say everything you say about your lock about segregation, it pretty obviously does compare.
"I was less scared of the mortar rounds that came in every day than I was of the men who shared my food"
what does that have to do with relocating the women? by your argument anyone in brooklyn or iraq or whatever unsafe place should simply be relocated because it is easier. if you would have read the article more thoroughly you would have seen what the woman thought about being transferred. like she was the reason there were problems. that she was the problem. problem was removed. i bet she felt great.
If relocating is the simplest way to avoid a problem, then why not use it ? About the girl who was transferred, yes it sucks that happened. It's undefendable that those who harassed her weren't held accountable. It'd be great if there were a way to avoid situations were the army doesn't have to choose between either transferring a girl or court marshalling half a platoon, maybe by not putting a lone girl there ?
"only females platoons"
it doesn't matter that they will probably all be rookies and get themselves killed. it doesn't matter that you would have to give them female officers as well. it doesn't matter that they will have to share latrines and showers with males anyway unless you want them to set up camp 10 miles from any male platoon. it doesn't matter that it is gender segregation. it doesn't matter that diversity should be
I must say I think you're a pretty reasonable debater give the average of this forum, but this paragraph is you low point. You who has been so staunchly defending the capabilities of women are now saying they're all rookies, that I'd be impossible to find enough capable female officers. And I really wonder where I have given the idea that I'm in favour of such an extreme segregation that men and women shouldn't even be able to use the same toilets.
Now, I hope you haven't tired of reading the rest of the post, because this is probably the most important bit of it. I am not saying there should be a complete segregation, I am saying that it's a drastic, but almost undeniable way to greatly reduce the number of rapes in the army, and that in the context of an army, segregation is way more justifiable then it is in a civilian context. If education and a policy of prosecuting every single case of harassment/sexual assault/rape does the trick, so much the better. I'm of the opinion that it will help, but not enough, so a next step is a minimum number of women in formations, so they can look after each other. There are probably many other things that will help and that I find better then complete segregation, but I repeat,in my opinion it would be an acceptable last resort.
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by generalissimowhat you say and what you mean are two different things. we all know hitler really meant well. but we don't care. because what matters is what you do say and do, not what you mean in your heart. so either communicate like a semi intelligent ape or don't be offended when someone yells at you for your idiotic statements.
Ok, you obviously don't understand, or is too much of a dumbass to understand what I meant.
I meant that a father should go to war if the child's mother is taking care of the child.
And, a mother could go to war if the husband is at home taking care of the child.
Regardless of who goes to war, one of the parents should stay at home.
Personall ...[text shortened]... se a mother is irreplaceable, the love of a mother is very important for a healthy upbringing.
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by generalissimoYour refusal to recognize same-sex marriages is so pervading and insidious.
I meant that a father should go to war if the child's mother is taking care of the child. And, a mother could go to war if the husband is at home taking care of the child.
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by Bartsall are rookies when they first get to the front. rookie doesn't mean without potential, it means new.
[b]you implied it. i know it was unintentional. but you implied it. by removing temptation from the soldiers you are basically saying "i am too lazy to adress the real issue, so i am gonna deny a group of people the right to equal treatment and the right to defend their country just so the fragile animals wouldn't be tempted"
Rubbish, show me where I ha ...[text shortened]... pinion it would be an acceptable last resort.[/b]
"I have also given the alternative of units with enough women so they can look after one another"
and i have told you that is not always possible. you don't send a soldier where there are enough of his or her gender. you send him or here where you need him or her to be. if reinforcements are needed and all you have is a woman, are you gonna wait until a platoon with enough women show up? bench the woman until then?
"the numbers prove me right."
prove what right? that one achieves better results if they remove the victims and potential victims out of harms way? i believe RUBBISH is a favorite word of yours.
"I've told you that I believe soldiers are more likely to rape because of the specific circumstances in combat zones."
so you send to fight wars those that are psychically unstable. the animals that cannot cope with it the stress. the animals that cannot restrain themselves, be it raping a fellow american, torturing an iraqi prisoner, shooting at civilians, or raping small iraqi girls. these are your champions of justice. you claim they are more likely to rape and you freaking give them a gun and the keys to tanks and jets? that draft officers are sending soldiers that would violate army regulations and snap and attack a fellow soldier just because they are a little stressed and they need their momies and/or a little nookie? are you freakin kidding me? if that were the case, the american army should disband right now.
are you saying that soldiers are dealing with stress because of the "specific circumstance of the combat zone" so you are planning to remove the temptations. like the fine ladies. again i ask: are you freakin kidding me? you believe a soldier is unstable and likely to rape and you allow him a gun? you don't discharge him immediately?
If the reason the army assigns her to a unit is that it's an all female unit where she'll be safer, then that reason is as good as any other. In short, the army has the right to tell a soldier what to do, and if the reason for a command is that they are concerned for her safety, then she has to obey
kind of like a housewife. they too were considered too weak to have an opinion, to be treated the same as men. the women of the 40's 50's etc were happy at home, weren't they? they took care of the children. the husband brought home money, they did what they were meant to: do as they are told. kindly grow up and smell the 21st century
"By segregation I'm not denying women the right to do every task the military has to offer. I do not advocate removing women from the army. It's not preventing anything, I'm making it harder for the women to get raped. See, I can say everything you say about your lock about segregation, it pretty obviously does compare."
by forcing blacks to use different toilets the americans weren't denying the blacks the right to pee. just telling them they are different, and that they are not wanted in the same toilets, schools, jobs as the white doodz. they had rights. just not the same rights as everyone else.
If relocating is the simplest way to avoid a problem, then why not use it ?
i bet the israelis or palestinians would all agree with you. i bet the person removed from his home in a crime neighbourhood would agree with you. i mean why go after the cause of the problem? that is to damn hard. and so not fun. why fix the crime in a neighbourhood, better tell the honest decent citizen to get the fuk out.
"It'd be great if there were a way to avoid situations were the army doesn't have to choose between either transferring a girl or court marshalling half a platoon"
it isn't a freakin choice at all. if you have a platoon filled with animals, will you let the animals go free? think they won? maybe repeat their actions in the future? instead of making an example out of them, an example so brutal that whenever a beast wanting to rape someone hears the victim no, in an instant his dik would shrink to an inch and his balls go back to his stomach. that is what must be done. what kind of justice do you have going on in your brain? a "they are very stressed let's hold their hands, lets remove all breakable things from their path so that they dont break them in a tantrum". do you know which people are the only people deserving of this behavior? retarded people. people you should feel sorry for because they cannot think and therefore are not responsible for their actions.
"that men and women shouldn't even be able to use the same toilets."
remove the women from men platoons but make them use the same toilets and showers as men. what would be the freakin point? again, assuming without educating and freakin threaten the men with a brutal punishment if they can't keep their diks in check.
"I am saying that it's a drastic, but almost undeniable way to greatly reduce the number of rapes in the army"
there are quite a few ways to greatly reduce rapes in the army.
- castrate all the men. balls cut off when they get their haircuts and uniforms.
- send the women home. all
- make camps no larger than 4 people, all of the same gender or the women outnumbering the men.
since you like drastic measures, i thought i contribute a few. each of them is as despicable as the others and as despicable and cowardly as your, but like yours, they all achieve results.
23 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo you want me to prove to you that women in general are weaker then men.......are you mentally stable ?
and your argument for that is? "it is simply true" "i have simply spoken so"
how about you you use some reason? just to humor us?
Do you actually go outside the house and interact with real people ?
Its common knowledge
Answer this simple question for me....how many women generals are there ?
23 Apr 09
Originally posted by RSMA1234SOME women are weaker than SOME men. must i keep repeating this? thought you finally added "in general" to your stupid stereotypical statements. but we are not talking in general, about the blonde playmates with big boobs, we are talking about some women. and those "few" are the ones that go to war. as long as there is someone uses the same standard for testing both women and men, some women will beat some men. either through agility, determination or actually superior strength.
So you want me to prove to you that women in general are weaker then men.......are you mentally stable ?
Do you actually go outside the house and interact with real people ?
Its common knowledge
Answer this simple question for me....how many women generals are there ?
"Answer this simple question for me....how many women generals are there ?"
i thought you said women being weaker than men is the reason women have no place in the military. what does strength have to do with being a general. but to humor you, considering the average age for a general to be 50(i have no proof of that it could be lower but probably is higher), and considering officers graduate from west point at lets say 24, that would lead to the question "how many women were in west point and in the military in general in 1973". the answer is very few, in a world where women were still expected to stay at home in the kitchen. Not to mention you would have to take into account the mentality of people like you that even today think women shouldn't be in the military. And my average age of 50 for turning general just got a lot higher.
"Women must do twice as much work and two times better than men to receive half the pay. Fortunately that is not difficult." It is funny. a little unfair from my male perspective, a male that likes to think he is just as good as a man. but when your mother comes home from the same job as your father and goes to cook dinner while the male goes to watch tv, you start questioning the equality.
23 Apr 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziI had a really long answer to your post all typed out already, but choose to throw it away,the discussion wasn't going anywhere the way it's going now. Instead I'd like to ask you this question.
all are rookies when they first get to the front. rookie doesn't mean without potential, it means new.
"I have also given the alternative of units with enough women so they can look after one another"
and i have told you that is not always possible. you don't send a soldier where there are enough of his or her gender. you send him or here where you need ...[text shortened]... owardly as your, but like yours, they all achieve results.
Do you believe (a form of) segregation would be acceptable if it were the only way to solve the problem of sexual assaults on female soldiers ? If not, would you find it acceptable that a number of women got raped to avoid segregation in the army? In short, choose the lesser of the two evils.