• 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!

Trump: 'US will not allow transgender individuals to serve in military' [W:144]

the trans community has a 40% suicide rate. FORTY PERCENT. Yet the left think they are capable of basically the most stressful job ever created, and trust them in the highest of stressful situations.

those two ideas don't add up. they are in direct conflict with one another. You can't say they are stable enough to serve with a FORTY PERCENT suicide rate. period. end of story. No further discussion necessary. You can't base military decisions on people's FEELINGS BEING HURT.

and you wonder why the left has no political power left. sheeze.
 
Hicup said:
Well that's kinda of my point, really. Some things that can be carefully controlled for are worthwhile endeavors, other things, oh, say like this stupid study, simply cannot accurately be controlled for. the only way to accurately get a number is to actually count them one by one. not going to happen, nor should it. My above analogy is perfectly spot on about why this paper is... well.. crap.


Tim-
Click to expand...
Yer simply expressing an opinion, one not based on information but speculation on many levels....and AGAIN, you keep making my point that the costs associated are probably LOWER, ergo, the economic argument from President Cheeto is baseless.
 
JoeTrumps said:
the trans community has a 40% suicide rate. FORTY PERCENT. Yet the left think they are capable of basically the most stressful job ever created, and trust them in the highest of stressful situations.

those two ideas don't add up. they are in direct conflict with one another. You can't say they are stable enough to serve with a FORTY PERCENT suicide rate. period. end of story. No further discussion necessary. You can't base military decisions on people's FEELINGS BEING HURT.

and you wonder why the left has no political power left. sheeze.
Click to expand...

And yet many serve now honorably
 
VanceMack said:
Of course. The military conducts the study based on real world actions...but leftists know better.

Where did you serve?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I assure you there was a time when the generals warned the military would be destroyed by mixing the races
 
vegas giants said:
I assure you there was a time when the generals warned the military would be destroyed by mixing the races
Click to expand...
This wasnt a warning. This was a real world field test. You claim to be former military yet, you would rather stand by your social justice bull****, even if it means diminished readiness and ultimately the loss of life of your 'brothers'.
 
Somerville said:
Obviously you didn't read all of my words:

An obvious effort to keep those nasty females out of combat units but actually a valid requirement.

One must judge the individual by that person's abilities and NOT stop that person simply because they are a member of a group that generally doesn't, or can't, comply with the needs of the unit. Before it became gender-related, there were issues with racism within the military.

Serve? What is the relevance of my service to this specific question? In the Atlantic and the Pacific, I spent some time.
Click to expand...
This wanst some physical fitness exam. It was a test in combat operations. Mixed units performed significantly worse than all male units. But hey...who gives a **** if people die (men AND women)...as long as your social justice causes are promoted.
 
VanceMack said:
This wasnt a warning. This was a real world field test. You claim to be former military yet, you would rather stand by your social justice bull****, even if it means diminished readiness and ultimately the loss of life of your 'brothers'.
Click to expand...

I am a vet and I guarantee you they had studies in 1940 that said black men can't be as good pilots, divers, marksmen and that mixing them with whites hurt combat readiness
 
vegas giants said:
I am a vet and I guarantee you they had studies in 1940 that said black men can't be as good pilots, divers, marksmen and that mixing them with whites hurt combat readiness
Click to expand...
You should have no problem producing those studies then and their methodology.
 
VanceMack said:
Try a source NOT from 1925 that studied the actual integration of black American soldiers and the impact on an actual units readiness and combat capabilities. You know...like THIS study did.
Click to expand...

You can squirm but face it...the military can always get a study to show what they want it to show. If they went with that study in 1925 blacks would still just be cooks and porters. Here is some of their analysis of blacks in combat or other scientific analysis. They studied blacks in the military and this is what they came up with.

In the past wars the negro has made a fair laborer, but an inferior technician. As a fighter he has been inferior to the white man even when led by white officers. . .

It is generally recognized that the pure blood American negro is inferior to our white population in mental capacity. . . . The cranial cavity of the negro is smaller than the white; his brain weighing 35 ounces contrasted with 45 for the white

All officers, without exception, agree that the Negro lacks initiative, displays little or no leadership, and cannot accept responsibility. Some point out that these defects are greater in the Southern Negro.

An opinion held in common by practically all officers is that the negro is a rank coward in the dark. His fear of the unknown and unseen will prevent him from ever operating as an individual scout with success. His lack of veracity causes unsatisfactory reports to be rendered, particularly on patrol duty.

They were wrong then. Weren't they? It is quite possible they are wrong again
 
vegas giants said:
You can squirm but face it...the military can always get a study to show what they want it to show. If they went with that study in 1925 blacks would still just be cooks and porters. Here is some of their analysis of blacks in combat or other scientific analysis. They studied blacks in the military and this is what they came up with.

In the past wars the negro has made a fair laborer, but an inferior technician. As a fighter he has been inferior to the white man even when led by white officers. . .

It is generally recognized that the pure blood American negro is inferior to our white population in mental capacity. . . . The cranial cavity of the negro is smaller than the white; his brain weighing 35 ounces contrasted with 45 for the white

All officers, without exception, agree that the Negro lacks initiative, displays little or no leadership, and cannot accept responsibility. Some point out that these defects are greater in the Southern Negro.

An opinion held in common by practically all officers is that the negro is a rank coward in the dark. His fear of the unknown and unseen will prevent him from ever operating as an individual scout with success. His lack of veracity causes unsatisfactory reports to be rendered, particularly on patrol duty.

They were wrong then. Weren't they? It is quite possible they are wrong again
Click to expand...
You just wrote a lot of words to avoid addressing the fact that you cannot provide studies done showing integrated units were 65% less combat ready and efficient as the current study clearly demonstrated. You are blathering on while ignoring the fact and reality that integrated units will cause the deaths of US servicemen and women...a position you advocate for solely in the name of social justice. Your position is especially despicable as someone that claims to be a former serviceman.
 
VanceMack said:
You just wrote a lot of words to avoid addressing the fact that you cannot provide studies done showing integrated units were 65% less combat ready and efficient as the current study clearly demonstrated. You are blathering on while ignoring the fact and reality that integrated units will cause the deaths of US servicemen and women...a position you advocate for solely in the name of social justice. Your position is especially despicable as someone that claims to be a former serviceman.
Click to expand...
I am sorry that the military claimed you are inferior because of the size of your cranial cavity. I personally served with many brave black service members. And if I was under fire at my FOB I assure you I would not care about the gender of those coming to my aid....as long as they came fast. Have you had your cranial cavity measured? LOL
 
vegas giants said:
I am sorry that the military claimed you are inferior because of the size of your cranial cavity. I personally served with many brave black service members. And if I was under fire at my FOB I assure you I would not care about the gender of those coming to my aid....as long as they came fast. Have you had your cranial cavity measured? LOL
Click to expand...
Im sorry you would rather see dead soldiers in the name of social justice than simply facing facts. You position is predictable...but no less reprehensible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
Im sorry you would rather see dead soldiers in the name of social justice than simply facing facts. You position is predictable...but no less reprehensible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'm sorry the military said you had a small cranial cavity and therefore were not fit to serve alongside superior white people. We decided to let you do it anyway. Does that mean we are responsible for more dead soldiers? LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom