• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy will soon let women serve on subs

Blackdog said:
Please point out where I said this? It is news to me.



Please Kali, I have been in the Tavern more than one time. I know enough to know you are no match for me.



Based on the fact that females are physically weaker than males. You can deny nature and science all you want, but it will not float

Here don't take my word for it....

"Which is the weaker sex? It's a long-running argument - men point to women's weaker physical strength, while women are likely to mutter about 'man' flu. But who is better built to withstand disease? LOWRI TURNER asked a panel of medical experts to settle the matter once and for all ....

Overall, when you add up the number of individuals affected by all these conditions, women are the weaker sex." - Are women really the weaker sex? The intriguing medical facts that settle the oldest argument of all | Mail Online

"After looking at all the different data and accounts I have studied on this topic, I have come to a sad conclusion for women ultra runners today. I feel that women will never be able to be competitive with a man on an elite level. The evidence in Dr. Daniels study and by Andy Milroy leads me to believe that due to biological differences, women's bodies do not function in the same way as a mans and are held back in ways that men are not. This was not the outcome that I had planned for my paper. My original idea was that I would prove that women could be competitive with men and on some levels, they can. My beliefs matched the quote at the beginning of this paper explicitly but in reality I have decided that the strength of the woman's mind cannot overcome the differences in body composition. Although I agree that men are faster at ultrarunning than women, I do not share this view in other venues of life. My ideas on the subject best match those of Joan Benoit when she says, "I want to emphasize that the differences between men and women stem from their separate strengths. Let's remember, our bodies have many functions, and running is just one of many uplifting experiences of our physical existence." (Samuelson 15)" - Weaker Sex?

"Here is some news for all the feminists. Latest research have finally proved that women are weaker than men physically. For their study, the researchers observed activity levels in school children and adults over 70 years of age discovered that males are more active. - Physical Fitness | Man Vs Woman | Health Care | Good Health

Would you like to ignore all that as well?



Ad-hom. nice. :doh
Click to expand...

Dear BlackDog, you lost me with your "been in the Tavern more than one time" thing.. I do NOT really hang out in the Tavern so your comment is lame and I will not read the rest of your drivel! When you can be HONEST? GET BACK TO ME!
 
My father in law was an officer on Yugoslavian Subs, he likes the idear.
 
Kali said:
Dear BlackDog, you lost me with your "been in the Tavern more than one time" thing.. I do NOT really hang out in the Tavern so your comment is lame and I will not read the rest of your drivel! When you can be HONEST? GET BACK TO ME!
Click to expand...

In other words, you got nothing.

Duly noted!
 
Porchev said:
First the conversation in parts of this thread argues women can't physically hack it--which isn't true is many cases, but now it's about if the **** hits the fan?
Click to expand...

Well, sure. Moving the goalposts is the standard retreat tactic when your opponent's inferior arguments are being destroyed in a firefight.

:rofl
 
Last edited:
Glinda said:
Well, sure. Moving the goalposts is the standard retreat tactic when your opponent's inferior arguments are being destroyed in a firefight.

:rofl
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with firefights or whether or not a few women can hack it, a few can.

It is people trying to use unrealistic goals that completely goes against the scientific evidence posted and the real world evidence also posted.

No one has moved the goal posts, but when a fallacy argument is offered based on examples used for the argument rather than the argument itself, what do you expect?

Fact: In every case, every single one the standards have been reduced for females.

Fact: Multiple people have been asked to show just one example of where this did not happen. The best they could do was a few ad-hom's.

Fact: The standard for females are to low for combat arms in ground combat.

Fact: Women are physically on average weaker than men, not by a little either. If it were not women could play in the same sports as men, they don't compete against men for a reason.

So you can ignore the FACTS and it will get you no place because of the overwhelming evidence.

Now bring a real argument and evidence and leave the fallacy arguments at home.
 
Blackdog said:
I don't have to back it up. That was then, this is now. Combat medics are armed and no longer wear the distinguishing cross because of the modern day battle field. Insurgents not being part of the Geneva convention do not recognize them a non combatants. Sort of defeats the purpose of us calling them non combatants huh.

Since our medics have to move with the troops and preform in the same conditions, it is important that they also be physically as prepared as the troops they are with.
Click to expand...

That was then and it's still now Whether it's observed when fighting a non-signatory to the Geneva Conventions is irrelevant to what policy actually states.

Of course medics are armed. I even said so in my previous post. The one time we went to the field, we were armed with M16's; and were still considered non-combatants.

I agree with the last paragraph for medics assigned to combat troops. But it doesn't apply to medics in field hospitals or other areas behind the lines. There's no need for it.
 
I think women and gay should be able to openly serve in all areas of the military.

Our military should not be limited to personnel because of a few's inability to focus on their job rather then what is in their pants. If anyone cannot handle the mental and physical requirements of their post then perhaps they should request for different means of employment.
 
Kali said:
Dear BlackDog, you lost me with your "been in the Tavern more than one time" thing.. I do NOT really hang out in the Tavern so your comment is lame and I will not read the rest of your drivel! When you can be HONEST? GET BACK TO ME!
Click to expand...

Sounds like a cop out to me.....
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
That was then and it's still now Whether it's observed when fighting a non-signatory to the Geneva Conventions is irrelevant to what policy actually states.
Click to expand...

Not when you are fighting in 2 wars were the insurgents are not members of the accords.

Different times require different measures.

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Of course medics are armed. I even said so in my previous post. The one time we went to the field, we were armed with M16's; and were still considered non-combatants.
Click to expand...

Not by the enemy you are not. You would be killed just like any other soilder.

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
I agree with the last paragraph for medics assigned to combat troops. But it doesn't apply to medics in field hospitals or other areas behind the lines. There's no need for it.
Click to expand...

As with any other assignment in the Army, it could change at any time. You have to be ready to go into the field at any time as a solider. In the end that is what you are medic or not.

So yes, there is an absolute need for it.
 
Gibberish said:
I think women and gay should be able to openly serve in all areas of the military.

Our military should not be limited to personnel because of a few's inability to focus on their job rather then what is in their pants. If anyone cannot handle the mental and physical requirements of their post then perhaps they should request for different means of employment.
Click to expand...



You have no clue......
 
Gibberish said:
I think women and gay should be able to openly serve in all areas of the military.

Our military should not be limited to personnel because of a few's inability to focus on their job rather then what is in their pants. If anyone cannot handle the mental and physical requirements of their post then perhaps they should request for different means of employment.
Click to expand...

You should probably look at the evidence posted and then follow what you have in your sig.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
 
Last edited:
Since people want to ignore the actual argument put forward, here it is again for your consideration...

Fact: In every case, every single one the standards have been reduced for females.

Fact: Multiple people have been asked to show just one example of where this did not happen. The best they could do was a few ad-hom's.

Fact: The standard for females are to low for combat arms in ground combat.

Fact: Women are physically on average weaker than men, not by a little either. If it were not women could play in the same sports as men, they don't compete against men for a reason.

Those are the facts.
 
Navy Pride said:
You have no clue......
Click to expand...

So there are many that are unable to meet the mental requirements of their post? Not to mention, for those that are married, their inability to stay faithful to their wedding vows.
 
Blackdog said:
You should probably look at the evidence posted and then follow what you have in your sig.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't have time to read through 70+ pages. Care to link to the evidence of you have it readily available?
 
Blackdog said:
Since people want to ignore the actual argument put forward, here it is again for your consideration...

Fact: In every case, every single one the standards have been reduced for females.

Fact: Multiple people have been asked to show just one example of where this did not happen. The best they could do was a few ad-hom's.

Fact: The standard for females are to low for combat arms in ground combat.

Fact: Women are physically on average weaker than men, not by a little either. If it were not women could play in the same sports as men, they don't compete against men for a reason.

Those are the facts.
Click to expand...

What I would like to see proven is that the woman's standards are in adequate to perform a successful job in combat situations. A woman only doing 10 pulls vs a mans 20 doesn't equate to job performance.

Just a few questions.

Are women unable to carry the average infantry equipment?

Are women unable to shoot as accurately as men?

Are women unable to make decisions as fast and/or as accurately as men?
 
Another exception to the average woman...(although stronger and more fit than many men)

veteransfemale10.jpg



Lisa Bickels - bodybuilder, fitness model and Marine
 
Gibberish said:
What I would like to see proven is that the woman's standards are in adequate to perform a successful job in combat situations. A woman only doing 10 pulls vs a mans 20 doesn't equate to job performance.

Just a few questions.

Are women unable to carry the average infantry equipment?

Are women unable to shoot as accurately as men?

Are women unable to make decisions as fast and/or as accurately as men?
Click to expand...

If you are that interested you are going to have to wade through it, I am not. Already posted it and it has been a long thread.

I have made my position clear and backed it up with evidence. No one has given any evidence at all to counter this.

PS females don't do pull ups at all. They do flex arm hang. Not even remotely the same thing.
 
Last edited:
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
You're kidding, right? Medics are non-combatants.

I spent 7 years in the Army as a medic. We were taught that we were non-combatants. If we were captured, we were NOT POW's, but considered retained personnel. We could be armed with an M16, but could only use it to defend ourselves and our patients. If we used it offensively, we would lose our non-combatant status and if captured, we'd be considered POW's. Additionally, we could also be subject to trial for war crimes.

If you disagree with this, then back it up with a link from the Defense Department.
Click to expand...

Combat medics aren't non-combatants.
 
Gibberish said:
I think women and gay should be able to openly serve in all areas of the military.

Our military should not be limited to personnel because of a few's inability to focus on their job rather then what is in their pants. If anyone cannot handle the mental and physical requirements of their post then perhaps they should request for different means of employment.
Click to expand...

We're talking about reality; not fantasy.

What happens when a sub is operational and a female sailor is raped? She has to stay on the sub until the cruise is finished--for months--or does the sub break from it's mission to return to port? Think about how impractical and how dangerous to the mission the latter would be.
 
Gibberish said:
Sorry I don't have time to read through 70+ pages. Care to link to the evidence of you have it readily available?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence. The only evidence he has is of discrimination in the military. He has evidence that the standards were lowered (big shocker that none of us dispute that standards were lowered). He has absolutely no evidence contrary to what the rest of us have actually been talking about.
 
American said:
Okay, the thread has gone silly now. I'm sure we can find 10,000 of these anytime we want. :roll:
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how many there are. Only that there ARE women who can pass the same physical standards as men in the military.
 
rivrrat said:
There is no evidence. The only evidence he has is of discrimination in the military. He has evidence that the standards were lowered (big shocker that none of us dispute that standards were lowered). He has absolutely no evidence contrary to what the rest of us have actually been talking about.
Click to expand...


All us vets, telling you what the problems will be and why and we don't know jack **** about it.

How long were you in the service?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom