Page 35 of 97 FirstFirst ... 2533343536374585 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 967

Thread: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

  1. #341
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Then I feel sorry for you if you ended up in the ****. I would be alive and you would be dead.
    Really??? I thought unqualified people got qualified people killed

  2. #342
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    Really??? I thought unqualified people got qualified people killed
    Please stop trolling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  3. #343
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus View Post
    For the 1000th time. No one has talked about reducing the standards for women. If they can't hack. They can't hack it, that is fine. You keep saying that 99% of women couldn't do what men do. That's fine; leave those 99% of women out. Let the other 1% who want to and can do it in. If no women are capable, fine, no women are capable. That doesn't mean that those who can and want to do it should be left out.
    Ummm...women already have reduced fitness standards in the military. But I agree with you...there SHOULD be one standard.

  4. #344
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Please stop trolling.
    That's a direct response to your statement.

  5. #345
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    Really??? I thought unqualified people got qualified people killed
    I assume thats why you got out...know your limitations...serve...get benefits...bail.

    In your 7 years...did you ever deploy? Because unless you are in a unit unlike any I have ever seen I cant imagine you not being fully trained and qualified before deployment. Weren you title 10? Guard? reserve?

  6. #346
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    But I agree with you...there SHOULD be one standard.
    That's what many of us have been saying all along.

    But even that won't appease those who want females out. There's no satisfying them.

  7. #347
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    That's a direct response to your statement.
    It is trolling. You are taking us way of topic for no good reason.

    If you where unqualified, then that is on you. Every man I knew was ready to go and kept up with the training.

    So this is about females on subs or in combat etc. Not your service or mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  8. #348
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    It makes perfect sense because that's the idiotic do-loop that is caused by trying to force a square peg in a round hole. In many case they can't meet the freaking standard, but the leaders turn back and say make it work because they don't want to deal with the politics. Consequently standards are lowered until the protesting ceases. The men will always get the higher standard to meet than the women, which most men don't mind until the paycheck comes in and the women get the same. That doesn't mean that women don't have areas in which they are superior, but we're talking about the military, we're talking about combat, being testosterone aggressive. Hold women to the exact same standards and assure me you'll find enough women to include that will satsify the equal rights groups that you are fair and have a high enough quota to make them happy. Lowering the standards so more women can get in is more or less a "Yes Dear" move by the military. I'm assuming we're speaking about those positions where there is any question of equal ability, not the supply clerk with the clipboard or high skilled desk jobs.
    Still doesn't make any sense.

    This isn't about lowering the standards. Removing an arbitrary chromosomal qualification doesn't lower the standards. Right now, all women are excluded from front-line and submarine service for one reason: they have no Y chromosome.

    That has caused equal rights groups to protest this arbitrary disqualification. This political pressure you speak of already exists.

    Removing the Y chromosome qualification does nothing to lower the standards for performance, because there is no military situation in which a Y chromosome is required to perform the task.

    Removing this particular requirement, which is arbitrary, removes the "it's an arbitrary standard" argument from the protesters that currently exist.

    So the only difference between the status quo and the proposed change is that the arbitrary Y qualification is removed.

    There is no reason to lower the other standards in order to achieve equal rights because any person, regardless of their chromosomal structure, who meets the standards, will be accepted into the role.

    Thus, equal rights are achieved.

    If the protests continue after equal rights have been established, they are not seeking equal rights, but a lowering of non-arbitrary standards.

    Being equal in rights does not mean being equal in ability.

    The way to offset the political pressure is to remove the unequal rights, and allow unequal ability to be the discriminator.

    Will there be discrimination? Of course. The whole point of having standards is to discriminate.

    Will these standards be based on gender? No, they will be based solely on ability.

    The reason your argument makes no sense is because it calls for discrimination based on something other than ability. It presumes that the peg is always square based on arbitrary, non-ability related measures.

    That's exactly the reason why the feared protesters have a legitimate case. In essence, you empower their cause by continuing to use arbitrary non-merit based disqualifications.

    That's why they are not only present, but they are actually justified in their cause.

    The standard you are supporting is a lack of equal rights, and as such, it means that they are correct to oppose your views.

    If no women can achieve the standards, it won't be because they don't have the right to achieve them. In this scenario, it means that the protesters may be present, but they are unjustified in their cause.

    It seems that if your biggest fear is protesters, the best way to counteract them logically speaking is to remove the justification for their argument. In this case, it means removing the Y chromosome requirement.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #349
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    That's what many of us have been saying all along.

    But even that won't appease those who want females out. There's no satisfying them.
    Dammit get it right! We don't want females out. We realize the PC crowed in this country will not let the standards be equalized because of attrition. So far it has never happened, ever. The standards have been relentlessly dropped in the civilian world as well.

    Stop ignoring the reality and get your head out of your ass and listen to what we are saying.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  10. #350
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Navy will soon let women serve on subs

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    I assume thats why you got out...know your limitations...serve...get benefits...bail.

    In your 7 years...did you ever deploy? Because unless you are in a unit unlike any I have ever seen I cant imagine you not being fully trained and qualified before deployment. Weren you title 10? Guard? reserve?
    It's not why I got out.

    I never went to war. Vietnam was just ending and they were no longer sending troops there.

    Never heard of title 10. I was active duty Army.

Page 35 of 97 FirstFirst ... 2533343536374585 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •