• 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!

Less Than 30% of Young Men and Women' Qualified to Join Military

ThoughtEx. said:
nah, the recruiters all tell you to take a capful of bleach mix it in with a gallon of milk and drink that before the drug test. they only care on paper.
Click to expand...

Ick!!! In my day we just took goldenseal capsules the day before.
 
maxparrish said:
Fitness is a factor, however the 50 years of immigration into the US of populations with below normal IQs has also lowered the number of trainable persons. At this point, only one-half of all school children (of all ages) are of European-White background. In fact, "In California, 43.8 percent of all children age eighteen and under are Latino; 40.5 percent in Texas; 50.8 percent in New Mexico; and 36.1 percent in Arizona. Immigration has been a secondary, but important, factor in Latino population growth."

Hence, nearly 40 percent of the military age population are of populations known for their sub-normal cognitive ability. While Hispanics have an average IQ higher than African-Americans, they are still significantly short (89) of the white - Euro average of 100.

Nor is it likely to get any better. Economic attainment for Hispanics cease after the 2nd generation, and their measured IQ does not appreciably improve. The "dysgenics" will continue and it is likely that the US will, by the late 21st century, profile the IQ statistics of Suriname or Ecuador.
Click to expand...

How long before White Men are replaced by the Mud People?
 
blackjack50 said:
You can’t. The job is absolute dog **** and they get treated like **** on a daily basis. Then when the poopie starts heading for the fan? They get blamed for that too. Even when the scumbag tried to grab their gun and everything else.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know you couldn’t pay me enough to do the job.
 
holbritter said:
You did not just go there, what's your name...'waddy'? You think women are not qualified? You must be neighbors with Fred Flintstone.
Click to expand...

I will consider women the equal of men when they have to pass the same PT test men have to pass, and they demand to be registered for the draft. What women want isn't equality, it's special treatment. They want to pick and choose their "equality".
 
maxparrish said:
Fitness is a factor, however the 50 years of immigration into the US of populations with below normal IQs has also lowered the number of trainable persons. At this point, only one-half of all school children (of all ages) are of European-White background. In fact, "In California, 43.8 percent of all children age eighteen and under are Latino; 40.5 percent in Texas; 50.8 percent in New Mexico; and 36.1 percent in Arizona. Immigration has been a secondary, but important, factor in Latino population growth."

Hence, nearly 40 percent of the military age population are of populations known for their sub-normal cognitive ability. While Hispanics have an average IQ higher than African-Americans, they are still significantly short (89) of the white - Euro average of 100.

Nor is it likely to get any better. Economic attainment for Hispanics cease after the 2nd generation, and their measured IQ does not appreciably improve. The "dysgenics" will continue and it is likely that the US will, by the late 21st century, profile the IQ statistics of Suriname or Ecuador.
Click to expand...

Produce IQ for statistics Suriname and Ecuador. Or you could always admit that your post is total bull****.

When my son joined the army, his recruiter told us that though he had no shortage of candidates, most of them didn't make the cut. They didn't meet the education requirements. Considering that we have parents here who pull their children out of school on nice days because the weather is too good for them to have to sit in school, it's not surprising.
 
maxparrish said:
Fitness is a factor, however the 50 years of immigration into the US of populations with below normal IQs has also lowered the number of trainable persons. At this point, only one-half of all school children (of all ages) are of European-White background. In fact, "In California, 43.8 percent of all children age eighteen and under are Latino; 40.5 percent in Texas; 50.8 percent in New Mexico; and 36.1 percent in Arizona. Immigration has been a secondary, but important, factor in Latino population growth."

Hence, nearly 40 percent of the military age population are of populations known for their sub-normal cognitive ability. While Hispanics have an average IQ higher than African-Americans, they are still significantly short (89) of the white - Euro average of 100.

Nor is it likely to get any better. Economic attainment for Hispanics cease after the 2nd generation, and their measured IQ does not appreciably improve. The "dysgenics" will continue and it is likely that the US will, by the late 21st century, profile the IQ statistics of Suriname or Ecuador.
Click to expand...

Imagine if we had another war & the draft resurfaced, with all the out of shape & limited personal & immigrants of recruitable age I imagine
Canada population would significantly increased. During the Viet Nam days I doubt their were as many rejects as there would be now.
 
Waddy said:
I will consider women the equal of men when they have to pass the same PT test men have to pass, and they demand to be registered for the draft. What women want isn't equality, it's special treatment. They want to pick and choose their "equality".
Click to expand...

Oh waddy, such a broad brush you use.
 
bearpoker said:
Produce IQ for statistics Suriname and Ecuador. Or you could always admit that your post is total bull****.

When my son joined the army, his recruiter told us that though he had no shortage of candidates, most of them didn't make the cut. They didn't meet the education requirements. Considering that we have parents here who pull their children out of school on nice days because the weather is too good for them to have to sit in school, it's not surprising.
Click to expand...

Or "you could always admit that your post is total bull****"?

The IQ data for Suriname (88) and Ecuador (89) is from Lynn and Vanhanan's papers/books: Lynn IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002), The Global Bell Curve (2008), IQ and Global Inequality (2006).

You may read the cited data in the appendix's of:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/14023966...ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate

As "making the education cut" is highly correlated with IQ, I am not surprised some don't make it. Nor am I surprised that of those that do have a HS degree, there are many whose test scores are not high enough to qualify. If you increase the proportion of people who are dumber than average, you have more unqualified folk.

That is the whole point of the discussion.
 
maxparrish said:
Or "you could always admit that your post is total bull****"?

The IQ data for Suriname (88) and Ecuador (89) is from Lynn and Vanhanan's papers/books: Lynn IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002), The Global Bell Curve (2008), IQ and Global Inequality (2006).

You may read the cited data in the appendix's of:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/14023966...ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate

As "making the education cut" is highly correlated with IQ, I am not surprised some don't make it. Nor am I surprised that of those that do have a HS degree, there are many whose test scores are not high enough to qualify. If you increase the proportion of people who are dumber than average, you have more unqualified folk.

That is the whole point of the discussion.
Click to expand...

What about the stupid White Men that joined and got blasted in Iraq for No reason....What was their excuse?Of note :...Ecuador zero casualties in Iraq War
 
Waddy said:
one 4 year hitch. How 'bout you?
Click to expand...

Twenty in the Navy. I asked because I took exception to your claims about "low standards" and about women. Yes, some who are of "low quality" get in - but the overall quality is certainly higher than that of the same age group of the general population. That, and for my first sixteen years, I thought that women didn't belong on board ships in the Navy...until I was stationed onboard a carrier with 300 or so women, and found out first-hand that the crew was more professional - in terms of behavior, cleanliness, and attitude - than any other ship I'd been on...and I'm certain that it's because of the women - because they were there, we men behaved better and did our jobs better. Yes, there were certainly problems, but the benefits absolutely outweighed the problems. And remember, I saw both sides of the story, from the misogynistic side of the years before I served on that ship...and from the side when I saw how the Navy worked with women on board.
 
maxparrish said:
Or "you could always admit that your post is total bull****"?

The IQ data for Suriname (88) and Ecuador (89) is from Lynn and Vanhanan's papers/books: Lynn IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002), The Global Bell Curve (2008), IQ and Global Inequality (2006).

You may read the cited data in the appendix's of:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/14023966...ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate

As "making the education cut" is highly correlated with IQ, I am not surprised some don't make it. Nor am I surprised that of those that do have a HS degree, there are many whose test scores are not high enough to qualify. If you increase the proportion of people who are dumber than average, you have more unqualified folk.

That is the whole point of the discussion.
Click to expand...

The people I spoke of who took their children out of school because the weather was too nice were white.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Twenty in the Navy. I asked because I took exception to your claims about "low standards" and about women. Yes, some who are of "low quality" get in - but the overall quality is certainly higher than that of the same age group of the general population. That, and for my first sixteen years, I thought that women didn't belong on board ships in the Navy...until I was stationed onboard a carrier with 300 or so women, and found out first-hand that the crew was more professional - in terms of behavior, cleanliness, and attitude - than any other ship I'd been on...and I'm certain that it's because of the women - because they were there, we men behaved better and did our jobs better. Yes, there were certainly problems, but the benefits absolutely outweighed the problems. And remember, I saw both sides of the story, from the misogynistic side of the years before I served on that ship...and from the side when I saw how the Navy worked with women on board.
Click to expand...

Four years as an Airdale tin bender on aircraft. Father a 20 year Marine. Oldest son an Army infantry officer with two tours. I believe women belong in the military; but since they've opened combat roles to women, which I understand is important for career advancement, then they should have to meet the exact same standards as the men, even on PT testing. Right now they are dropping standards for women so more of them make it. That's a mistake; they become a liability in combat. There are some women who can cut it; just not that many. If women want real equality, not pretend equality, they should register for and be subject to the draft. Men can also be forced into combat, regardless of their MOS, while for women it's voluntary. So what I'm saying is ALL the standards, all through the military combat occupations, should apply across the board, gender neutral. That is real equality, earned equality. BTW; there are many jobs aboard ship that women could do just fine.
 
Waddy said:
Four years as an Airdale tin bender on aircraft. Father a 20 year Marine. Oldest son an Army infantry officer with two tours. I believe women belong in the military; but since they've opened combat roles to women, which I understand is important for career advancement, then they should have to meet the exact same standards as the men, even on PT testing. Right now they are dropping standards for women so more of them make it. That's a mistake; they become a liability in combat. There are some women who can cut it; just not that many. If women want real equality, not pretend equality, they should register for and be subject to the draft. Men can also be forced into combat, regardless of their MOS, while for women it's voluntary. So what I'm saying is ALL the standards, all through the military combat occupations, should apply across the board, gender neutral. That is real equality, earned equality. BTW; there are many jobs aboard ship that women could do just fine.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying - I really do. But what you apparently don't realize is that women bring advantages to the military that we did not previously have. Yes, they are the weaker sex...but - if today's college populations are any indication - they're generally more intelligent than men. Yes, I DID go there - do you really think it's merely a coincidence that girls generally get better grades than boys in K-12? And we men certainly have no advantage over them when it comes to courage, bravery, determination, and commitment. NO, I'm not saying that women are always better than men. But I am saying that physical capability, while important, is not the be-all and end-all of determining who is best to have at one's side in combat.

This is not a new realization. Ancient Greece was famously misogynistic, but to Socrates, it was obvious: "Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior." Time was when few, if any women were allowed an education...but now that they have something close to (but not quite) equal opportunity, they make up a majority of our college students. Seems to me that Socrates may have been more accurate than he thought.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I understand what you're saying - I really do. But what you apparently don't realize is that women bring advantages to the military that we did not previously have. Yes, they are the weaker sex...but - if today's college populations are any indication - they're generally more intelligent than men. Yes, I DID go there - do you really think it's merely a coincidence that girls generally get better grades than boys in K-12? And we men certainly have no advantage over them when it comes to courage, bravery, determination, and commitment. NO, I'm not saying that women are always better than men. But I am saying that physical capability, while important, is not the be-all and end-all of determining who is best to have at one's side in combat.

This is not a new realization. Ancient Greece was famously misogynistic, but to Socrates, it was obvious: "Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior." Time was when few, if any women were allowed an education...but now that they have something close to (but not quite) equal opportunity, they make up a majority of our college students. Seems to me that Socrates may have been more accurate than he thought.
Click to expand...

I can agree with what you've said, to a point. Women are fully equal to men in intelligence and social skills; even better. But in military occupations where physical strength is important, they should have to meet the same training standards as men. If a woman can meet those standards, and a few can, then I see no reason they should be excluded from those physical occupations. But lowering standards simply for reasons of inclusion are demeaning and dangerous, and is a liability in combat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom