- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 17,108
- Reaction score
- 5,786
- Location
- Nationwide...
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Yes I meant "woman." Groups are made up of individuals, and therefore gross generalizations are inappropriate. I've already addressed this.Where to begin ?
Your logic does not hold.
"If a women" I think you meant "a woman" there right ?
If so, then you are again trying to present anecdotal individual evidence in a discussion of groups.
You have a good point, but you undermine the war of the sexes in this argument. Since there is no way to test a soldiers battlefield mettle without actually getting them into real combat, the task conditions and standards requirements are the only filters we have. If a woman meets those then she is qualified, just like any man, to serve in an infantry role. My comment of "she can fight as hard as a man" is obviously misplaced here, however my case still stands.Further, It does not follow that she can fight just as hard as "a man", because you have generalized again, and the group you have generalized, "a man", contains many individuals who exceed the physical requirements to a significant degree. All it proves, is that she met the requirement, the rest, is conjecture, and inaccurate at that.
I've already stated my point on this. I have no problem with an all female combat unit.So does this mean you would prefer to allow specialization but not subsequent assignment to an already predominantly male Specialized Infantry Unit ?? If so, the only practical application would need to be something along the lines of the "separate but equal" approah i touched on earlier.
No, I don't think "in general" anything with regard to this argument. The only to assess this would be to actually compare an all female unit against an all male unit of the same size and operational capacity. Everything else is pure speculation.Do you think men "in general" can do it faster and farther ? Remember. . .