Discrimination [Archive] - Army.com Forums

Lord Barker

05-11-2005, 05:40 PM

Actually there are many other reason women arent allowed on the front line, they are fragile, they destract the male soldiers, they go through a period every month where they are useless and annoying, they are women.
Seriously people take discrimination too far, its the army for crying out load, they have the guns they do what they want.

Ok, women want to be treated exactly as men? I will accept that when I can have a baby. Can't have a baby you say? STOP OPPRESSING ME!

Its Biology, it is a proven scientific fact that women are weaker and are tempting to men. Just like the fact that men can't have babies, women can't fight alongside men.

Does anyone know that the majority of women coming home on sick leave from the army is because they are pregnant?

In a battlefield situation, you can't have men doing stupid things to try and impress the women, and you can't have them getting down to dirty things on exercise.
Also there is potential rape of female POWs, and everyone cryes when a woman dies.

And anyone that says:

Just like the fact that men can't have babies, women can't fight alongside men.

"Well then just replace all the men with women and everything will be ok!"

I'll tell you why before you ask it, because men are there already, so men have the weapons, want to have only women in the army? Well you can fight the men if you want....

Just leave it and get over it.

And on the subject of having disabled people in the army, there are, to a small extent, just like any other job, the army has restrictions on what degree you can be burdened. You can have glasses, that is seen as a disability to some.
You would'nt have a paranoid scitzophenic working in an arms factory would you?

rangerzrock

05-11-2005, 10:32 PM

well said spoken like somebody with true common sense ;)

Aravis

05-16-2005, 02:05 AM

Oh, wow, where to start???

Actually there are many other reason women arent allowed on the front line, they are fragile, they destract the male soldiers, they go through a period every month where they are useless and annoying, they are women.
Seriously people take discrimination too far, its the army for crying out load, they have the guns they do what they want.

Women are fragile? Yeah, don't stare at us too hard; we'll fall to pieces!http://www.army.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2267#
EEK! And can you seriously say that you can tell when a woman has her time of the month without her telling you??? If so, you only know women who feel sorry for themselves for being women, and you don't know those of us who work hard no matter what day it is, and have realized that physical activities can cure the pain.

Its Biology, it is a proven scientific fact that women are weaker and are tempting to men. Just like the fact that men can't have babies, women can't fight alongside men.

Man has stepped out of the circle of biology a long time ago. It would be natural for the weakest ones to die and the strongest to live, but it hasn't been like that with humans for a very long time, and we are getting weaker as a species.

In a battlefield situation, you can't have men doing stupid things to try and impress the women, and you can't have them getting down to dirty things on exercise.
Also there is potential rape of female POWs, and everyone cryes when a woman dies.

Why does this argument always come up in these conversations. Men are the ones doing those stupid things, trying to impress and getting distracted because there is a woman close by. It's never a question of the women getting distracted, so the men are the ones with the problems, and they are the ones who should learn to deal with those problems.

And anyone that says:

"Well then just replace all the men with women and everything will be ok!"

I'll tell you why before you ask it, because men are there already, so men have the weapons, want to have only women in the army? Well you can fight the men if you want....

Who has said this? I don't think any woman in her right mind would ever say this. Now you're just showing your ignorance! Stupid remark...

Lord Barker

05-16-2005, 01:17 PM

Oh, wow, where to start???

Women are fragile? Yeah, don't stare at us too hard; we'll fall to pieces!http://www.army.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2267#
EEK! And can you seriously say that you can tell when a woman has her time of the month without her telling you??? If so, you only know women who feel sorry for themselves for being women, and you don't know those of us who work hard no matter what day it is, and have realized that physical activities can cure the pain.

Man has stepped out of the circle of biology a long time ago. It would be natural for the weakest ones to die and the strongest to live, but it hasn't been like that with humans for a very long time, and we are getting weaker as a species.

Why does this argument always come up in these conversations. Men are the ones doing those stupid things, trying to impress and getting distracted because there is a woman close by. It's never a question of the women getting distracted, so the men are the ones with the problems, and they are the ones who should learn to deal with those problems.

I did'nt say women were the ones with the problems, it is the men with the problems, but what is better to take away? Women who makes up like 3% of the front line serivce, of men who take up the rest.

I wans'nt just refering to the fact that women get all stressy and emotional when they are due on, which they do, but more the fact that they have to mess around with sorting themselfs out.

Man stepped out of the circel of Biology long ago? So that means men and women are exactly the same phisicaly? It is a really weird trend to be fit , both in muscular strength and cardio-vascular in the army, funny that....

Then again, I could'nt help noticing you come from sweeden, the proud possesers of one of the worst armies in Europe. You know why they are the worst? For the reasons you displayed, fretting over insiginificant fact, and trying to be perfectly fair. Sure your army can move garbage bags and fill in for the fireservice when it is on strike, but when it comes to combat, your training regime just is'nt harsh enough.

Do you have any experiance on a military exercise atall? If not, i suggest you don't try to get involved in these things, really shows your ignorance.

And the public is alot more sensetive to women then men, not women's fault but a fact, its like taking a man with one leg on exercise, its not his fault that he's only got one leg, but he still can't do it.

headpopper

05-16-2005, 02:34 PM

i was gonna post but this dude said it all...my cousin actually knocked up sum girl while he was over in iraq and she had to come home becuz she got pregnant....lol i think that isnt right...and i dont think it was all my cousins fault!! :rolleyes:

Lord Barker

05-16-2005, 04:06 PM

Seriously though, the lengths some people go to, just to be politically correct. Next thing you know these wacky liberal nutcases will be bitching about us not having primates in the army.

Aravis

05-17-2005, 04:53 AM

Man stepped out of the circel of Biology long ago? So that means men and women are exactly the same phisicaly? It is a really weird trend to be fit , both in muscular strength and cardio-vascular in the army, funny that....
No, I didn't say men and women are the same physically. I was just commenting on this little part of a previous post:

Its Biology, it is a proven scientific fact that women are weaker and are tempting to men. Just like the fact that men can't have babies, women can't fight alongside men.
Women are fighting alongside men, but men are not having babies. But the way science is advancing I don't think that is too far in the future.
Anyway, I was just trying to say that biology doesn't apply to humans the same way it does to other animals.

Then again, I could'nt help noticing you come from sweeden, the proud possesers of one of the worst armies in Europe. You know why they are the worst? For the reasons you displayed, fretting over insiginificant fact, and trying to be perfectly fair. Sure your army can move garbage bags and fill in for the fireservice when it is on strike, but when it comes to combat, your training regime just is'nt harsh enough.
Yes, I live in Sweden, but I'm not from here originally, I've lived here for less than three years and I'm not planning on staying, so you can go on talking s*** about the swedish army all you want as far as I'm concerned.

Do you have any experiance on a military exercise atall? If not, i suggest you don't try to get involved in these things, really shows your ignorance.
No, I don't have any experience of anything in any military, that's why I'm here on this forum; to find information about something that interests me so I won't stay ignorant (There is a saying: It's better to ask and appear stupid than to not ask and stay stupid).
I have excersised my whole life, and I'm in fairly good physical condition. I'm not saying I would have no problems surviving boot camp and the army, I'm just saying that I could make it.

But since you know so much about it, why don't you tell me? I would really like know what it is that women can't do that men can do. And would it be so much better if there were 3% less people on the front lines (rempving all the females)? The army is big and even though 3% sound small, I'm guessing we're talking about a pretty big number still.

Well, it doesn't matter what I write here... You're going to misinterpret every word anyway so I might just give up...

Trollkarlen2001

05-17-2005, 10:30 AM

Then again, I could'nt help noticing you come from sweeden, the proud possesers of one of the worst armies in Europe. You know why they are the worst? For the reasons you displayed, fretting over insiginificant fact, and trying to be perfectly fair. Sure your army can move garbage bags and fill in for the fireservice when it is on strike, but when it comes to combat, your training regime just is'nt harsh enough.

Do you know anything about the swedish army?

I am from Sweden. I have been in the army. I know how it is. And it is not like you describtion. This will be my first and my last mess in this forum. I just had to reply on your statement.

Have a wonderful life.

Lord Barker

05-17-2005, 03:11 PM

Do you know anything about the swedish army?

I am from Sweden. I have been in the army. I know how it is. And it is not like you describtion. This will be my first and my last mess in this forum. I just had to reply on your statement.

Have a wonderful life.

Thats lovely, you must have got so pleased with yourself for your apparent destruction of my comment that you forgot to give any reason why it is to the contrary, wouldn't it be great if everyone was so trustworthy that they don't have to justify their comments.
Sadly the world is not like that, otherwise I would simply have said "women should'nt be allowed on the front line" and everyone would accept the comment and walk off.

And thankyou for your message of goodwill, if I do have a wonderful life, I will know who to thank.

Back to discussion...

To be honest, the 3% women on the front line was an estimate on my behalf to demonstatre there really is'nt that many women on the front line in many countries, in the UK howver, I can assure you it is 0%, no women in infantry regiments atleast.

Another concession, most thing can be done by women on an exercise as are done by men, but such things as the standard load (about 70lbs), is a bit too much for most women to carry for a week, throw a rifle in, and it starts to get silly.
Other things include the psycological, as discussed before men run out and do stupid stuff, but alsso when there is a women that all the squaddies are attracted to, they won't focus on the job but father the said female. In the field, atleast in the british army, you arent allowed to talk atall, everything is done with hand signals and shouting is only done when a firefight is initiated.
There is ofcourse all the legal **** aswell, generaly you will sleep in a two man basha (tent that consists of a piece of waterproof material suspended from nearby branches and has no walls, for ease of access, construction, destruction (you will need to get away from your basah very quickly if you get intell you are a target for an incoming barrage.)) In the army there are strict rules that say women have to sleep in different accomidation, mainly because of the dangers of the men and their desires.

Otherproblems arrise in the actuall mentality of front line warfare. Men get all aggressive in war and don't usualy hesitate to pull the trigger, women are more likely, apparently, to go all emotional and not do it. Although I'm sure modern training methods negate this such as the SAT ranges and realistic targets, making shooting a man-shaped mass an automatic action.

rangerzrock

05-17-2005, 08:59 PM

"Women are fighting alongside men, but men are not having babies. But the way science is advancing I don't think that is too far in the future.
Anyway, I was just trying to say that biology doesn't apply to humans the same way it does to other animals."

ok aravis u have to be the stupedist human alive, and that's meanin alot. how the heck is a man gonna have a baby in the future, this is not anything to do with science, it is a biological fact that man will never have a child. God made males to not have babies, he made males strong to be able to guard the females and the babies that were born from their wombs, ok?!?!? ok! i am so glad u understand now. science can never change what God created, and science never will. so why don't u just go..go have your babies while we protect you by fighting on the front, ahem*: "women bring the soldiers into the world, and the soldiers fight." great saying i think what does evry1 else think lol. :cool:

Aravis

05-18-2005, 07:09 AM

ok aravis u have to be the stupedist human alive, and that's meanin alot. how the heck is a man gonna have a baby in the future, this is not anything to do with science, it is a biological fact that man will never have a child. God made males to not have babies, he made males strong to be able to guard the females and the babies that were born from their wombs, ok?!?!? ok! i am so glad u understand now. science can never change what God created, and science never will. so why don't u just go..go have your babies while we protect you by fighting on the front, ahem*: "women bring the soldiers into the world, and the soldiers fight." great saying i think what does evry1 else think lol. :cool:

Aww, you're cute rangerzrock :) I've read some of your posts, and I really admire you for wanting to be a ranger and being prepared to do everything in your power to become one.
However, you are 13, and as all 13 year old kids, "you know everything"! I'm not saying it's wrong, I was like that too (still am to some extent...) Well, anyway. Do you think God made man so that man would be able to clone humans? Now, if we can clone humans, way shouldn't we learn how to make a baby grow in a man? Maybe a scientist will create a man-made uterus, originally created for women born without one (yes, it happens, unfortunately), but after a while tried on a man. Just because God didn't make it so, doesn't mean man can't change it.
Actually, I'm an atheist so I don't believe in God, I believe in science (I'm not saying cloning is okay!!! Don't draw any conclusions! I'm just saying that most phenomena can be explained using science.)

But I still feel men should learn to control their urges (as I'm guessing women have to at the front lines; men are not alone in haveing those urges!), and that women can be a great asset in a war. But as someone pointed out, women can get emotional... Wanting to ask before shooting instead of shooting and then asking might be fatal. But can a man/woman know if he's up for it before he's put in that situation? rangerzrock, aer you certain you could take a life without blinking? Lord Barker, what about you?

And rangerzrock, just because I have a uterus doesn't mean I have to use it! There are too many babies without parents, so if I ever want a kid, I can always adopt one.

Lord Barker

05-18-2005, 09:57 AM

There are alot of things men should do in the army that arent done. Most rules in the army are set towards what will be possible, and it is very hard to deffine what is a man showing off between a man being stupid.
All sorts of scenarios could occur, men running strait into the line of fire for no reason just to show how hard he is, is he showing off or did he not know that there was heavy fire over there?
One man eliminated a woman's unoffical boyfirend, was it deliberate or a genuine mistake?

Things like that can really break apart the closely-knit team on a battlefield, and undermime an officer's control.

Btw, well taken Aravis, there are already too many insulting fights on this forum, makes a change for someone to turn the other cheek.

rangerzrock

05-18-2005, 08:36 PM

give me one good reason how science can make a baby? ther are none science cannot, they can clone all they want and practise all that bull**** but mark my words, no scientist can make a human being, fully human with a soul and all, they can put a uterus and whatever but they can't put a child in ther. a man is not made to be pregnant that is another biological fact. so science can put all those reproductive organs but they can't put a real unborn child into that man only God can do that. and God will not put it in a man u can count on that He made it to be only women having children and he will not go back on His word savvy?!?!?!? u are one of many misled people who don't know that God is the one that let's stuff happen and not happen, and he will not let men have children it's just as simple as that. as for cloning that wont be true childbirth that will only be a little copy of a baby shoved up, and pulled out. now that is not what i call childbirth. ok topic ended end of story,
and don't think u softened me with that "cute" comment. :cool:

Aravis

05-19-2005, 08:15 AM

give me one good reason how science can make a baby?
I'm not exactly sure what it is you're asking me to do here... A reason? There is no reason anyone would want to put down enough money for research on this particular subject. But that doesn't mean it can't be done.

u are one of many misled people who don't know that God is the one that let's stuff happen and not happen, and he will not let men have children it's just as simple as that.
And there are so many good things happening these days! Oh, he is really a bag of joy that God of yours!

Okay, you are entitled to your beliefs (or actually, they are your parents, have you actually thought your belief through, or are you just swallowing what you mom is telling you?), and I am entitled to mine. Now this isn't something someone has taught me, I have thought about it for MANY hours during my life!
I'll just as well might tell you my side of the story:
I believe that when people were having problems with their crops or with hunting, and they were starving and freezing in their caves a long time ago, they needed something/someone to blame for their misery. That's how most religions have come to be; people who were unhappy with their lives started to believe that there is a greater power than can be seen, and this belief went from generation to generation and ultimately developed into the many different religions we know.
I believe that Jesus existed. I believe he was a poor man, with a great, although probably pretty twisted, mind. He saw all the suffering going on around him, all the people he knew were poor like him, so he started telling them stories about life after death and the Big Guy in heaven. That all poor and good people will go there, and all rich and wicked people would go somewhere else. This gave the people something to believe in, they needed that, they felt that they too belonged, and they were okay being treated bad by the rich people, because they "knew they still had good to come" because they were better than the rich. And they started spreading the word about God and heaven to their friends and families, and so this religion grew, and, I guess you know what happened after that better than I do.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is the way it happened, this is just my story, and I'm not trying to convert anyone. I have many friends who are as strong in their beliefs as I am in mine, and we have had many interesting discussions about it. But I am willing and able to accept anyone, no matter what they believe in, you rangerzrock, are you as willing to accept and respect me for what I believe in, and jugde me only by what I say?

as for cloning that wont be true childbirth that will only be a little copy of a baby shoved up, and pulled out. now that is not what i call childbirth. ok topic ended end of story,
Tell that to a woman while she's giving birth to a clone, lol.

and don't think u softened me with that "cute" comment. :cool:
I wasn't trying to soften you, I was trying to make you tick you off, and I've succeeded :D Just having a bit of fun on your expence, and I don't think you're entirely undeserving of that!

Lord Barker

05-19-2005, 12:22 PM

Aravis

05-19-2005, 03:37 PM

Well, I'm not getting into a fecking thological debate, would be sat here all night.
What I will say, however is that there is no way to determin either way.
God is by nature metaphisical, and therefore is not subject to our laws of science, so science has no way of disproving him.
On the old "bad things happen so God can't exist" argument, there is always the retort "God is testing us" and why does the fact that God lets bad things happen disprove his existance anyway?
Yeah, I'm with you on that! It's impossible to prove anything one way or the other, people have tried to, but without any results.
I just thought I'd give rangerzrock something to think about, I think he's old enough to think it through himself and not take his parents word for it. And since he probably doesn't have anyone around to give him any arguments to contradict what his been hearing his whole life, I thought I would.
But I've always thought it's an interesting subject to discuss, especially with p***le who don't think like me and who don't want to convert me and who understand that I don't want to convert them. Just sharing thoughts.

Lord Barker

05-19-2005, 04:21 PM

Well you pretty much displayed Karl Marx's teleological argument, that states man was so horrifyed in the face of so much unknown and in such a huge place, and the majority being treated in such a way that the masses simply projected religion onto this to make their lives bearable. Which is where the saying "Religion is the Opium of the people".
This does not disprove the existance of God, just makes it more unlikely and gives a larger chance that man got it wrong.

If I were rangerzrock, I would counter that with the gamble theory:

If you believe in God, and there is no such thing, you die and fall into nothingness, but you have made the world a better place by doing the pro-social activities that are, ofcourse, associated with being a religious person.

If you don't belive in God, and there is no such thing, you die and fall into nothingness.

If you believe in God, and there is a God, you go to heaven.

If you don't believe in God, and there is a God, you go to hell.

From this, we can deduce that believing in God has benefits, either way, you have made the world a better place and you could go to heaven if he exists. But if do not belive in God, you either die or go to hell.
So it would seem believing in God has great advantages?
One could then say that alot of one's life is wasted if there is not God and they spend their time worshipping and what-have-you. Besides, what is someone worships the wrong God?

I knew philosphy would be a usefull study for something ;)

rangerzrock

05-19-2005, 06:11 PM

ahem, God doesn't make bad things happen. nuclear explosions are a human affair. where it comes to "disasters" that is nothing but nature. the earth shaking is not bad, merely the effects of it are, the fact that a gust of wind twirls is not bad, the outcome may be but not the tornado itself. as for eating all my mum gives me. i'd rather do that then burn in hell forever like you, you heretical *****. and the stuff she teaches me is not forced on me i take it by free will, u don't go talking about theology and philosophy cause you have no f-ing idea what it is. as for the remarks about men having children that will never happen. and i rest my case, if you want to go talk about this scientific crap then go on some science fiction site and talk on THOSE forums with all the nerds, cause ther will never be male mothers(lol that sounds hilarious, male mothers)

p.s ya you go ahead and believe what you want, and go ahead laughing, cause i'll get the last laugh when u burn in hell you *****.

p.sx2 ok u'r following a theory barker, and i'm following a truth. savvy? if you read a few books ritten by St. Thomas Aquinas you will see what i mean, and he was the best dang philosopher eva. he whopped every "theory" ever in his summa and many other of his books. and a good philosophy book would be "following christ in the world" which explains that God is true. and many other things. so just don't say anything till u 2 heretical evils study up on it. (oh ya heaven and hell are real cause a guy had to have surgery and it was one where you stop the heart, and right in the middle of the surgery he jumped up and yelled: "help me i'm in hell!" that's a true story by the way)

Aravis

05-20-2005, 12:17 PM

ahem, God doesn't make bad things happen. nuclear explosions are a human affair.
Okay, you're making some pretty broad assumptions about me right there! When you grow older you'll understand that you can't make generalizations like that. I'm not an atheist because "bad things happen in the world so there can't be a God!" I've looked inside myself, I've searched my surroundings and "felt" the air inside and around me, and I just haven't found anything to indicate there is some superior force or being there. I haven't based any of my beliefs on anything you can put into words and sentances. Now, if there really is a God, wouldn't he let anyone searching for him know that he's there? Okay, now you're just going to say that I should have faith and not try to look for answers, but if he really wanted an agnostic (one who isn't sure one way or the other) searching for signs (not physical signs, just anything) to tip over to the "right" side I think he would give them something, anything.
as for the remarks about men having children that will never happen. and i rest my case
You haven't proved anything, what case are you resting??
if you want to go talk about this scientific crap then go on some science fiction site and talk on THOSE forums with all the nerds, cause ther will never be male mothers(lol that sounds hilarious, male mothers)
I wasn't the one who brought up the idea; I think it was Lord Barker:
Its Biology, it is a proven scientific fact that women are weaker and are tempting to men. Just like the fact that men can't have babies, women can't fight alongside men.
I was just trying to say that that isn't a very good comparison, but the subject just got a bit out of hand.
(oh ya heaven and hell are real cause a guy had to have surgery and it was one where you stop the heart, and right in the middle of the surgery he jumped up and yelled: "help me i'm in hell!" that's a true story by the way)
Are you saying the doctors stopped his heart? I've never heard of that procedure, what's it called??
And I'm guessing this poor guy was just in pain or really afraid and he was using o figure of speach. Why he woke up, or talked in his sleep or whatever, I don't know, but I wouldn't take that as proof.

rangerzrock

05-22-2005, 12:03 AM

ok there have been tonnes of surgeries like that, and tonnes of stories to go with them, of people walking around with dead relatives while they're heart is stopped. and these are true. i forget the name of the surgery, it's cardiosomething, and i don't care if barker started it i'm gonna finish it. also i didn't call you an athiest. i'm just trying to give you a relgieon that you will be able to come to and you wont take it, it's that simple. your life is guaranteed to be alot better if you become a catholic, christian (ahem for all you protestants, Jesus made catholocism and that was christianity back when it was called christianity and you'd know what you were talking about instead of having to say, the baptists, or the lutherans you know. we came before you, we were formed by Jesus himself and anyone who breaks away from and teaches false doctrine or follows it in a consious will is a HERETIC. strong word eh?)

p.s one minor note in an operation, the patients do NOT talk in their sleep considering that they have a Very powerful antiseptic, and also if he was just talking in his sleep then why did he jump up and screem it out, especially when his heart was stopped so he was seeing a version of himself when he would be dead or half-dead.) you can't explain it with natural sources. these stories or miracles or any other amazing thing like this because they have been proven to be true by the greatest of philosophers ect. and that goes for that so-called "philosopher" that you've been studying barker, srry but he's a heretical false "philosopher".

soulchild

05-31-2005, 09:56 AM

Whoever said women are usless needs to get some *** and they shall quickly find out women definatly are NOT usless.!
I think women should be able to do whatever that want, except for infantry and special forces.

Ladies Holla (over 18) @ me!!!!!!!

kurusch

05-31-2005, 10:10 AM

Well done Aravis. Women of your quality would be welcome by my side in any conflict. Any woman that proves herself has the right and even duty to stand with men.

rangerzrock

05-31-2005, 03:25 PM

soulchild

05-31-2005, 04:14 PM

oh c'mon guyz, women were obviously Not made for military, their bodies are weaker, that's a biologican FACT. women can however do the most honourable action this world will ever know, taht is to have babies, as i said earlier, the women bring in the soldiers and the soldiers fight. :cool:

besides making babies women also have sex w/ us w/o making babies, talking reckless like that your endanger you chances of recieveing some of this *****!!!! U gotta think.

rangerzrock

05-31-2005, 11:17 PM

soulchild

06-01-2005, 07:11 AM

ok evry1 listen up....

what reason OTHER than pride, do women have, to join the military, gimme one other reason, there is none, women are always trying to be equal to men, because of what??? pride. and remember people that pride, is the route to all evils, that includes mistakes on the battlefield resulting in disaster, plus we need the best out there and you wont find the best in women when it comes to war, ALL EVIL, and that's a FACT. :cool:

p.s don't call me a ***** u turd, cause it's those who call men pussies who are the actual pussies, bullies may call their victims pussies and then think that they are so tough and masculine, but they don't even know what the word "MAN" means. :cool:

You see son women have vaginas and when you get older and you get some of this said vagina u will no longer call it that, u shall call it ***** because vagina is 2 hard to say. Nobody called u a ***** so calm down, stop worrying about people bullying you over the interent and watch some internet porn cause that is as close as ur gunna get to some ***** for a long, long time.

royal marine

06-02-2005, 06:22 AM

bloody hell change this thread to the lounge....no military value

soulchild

06-04-2005, 11:12 AM

bloody hell change this thread to the lounge....no military value

We sir are in agreement

What does bloddy mean when British people say it??? I've allwasy wondered about that......

capwil

06-04-2005, 08:58 PM

Pride - can also be a weakness.

If they join up that's fine, if they pass basic, better yet, if they go on full time active duty, they're good to do anything. Be them female, male, black, white, orange or brown!

There is a lot of immaturity, especially in the lower ranks. Normally the females are the ones who are the most mature in a group!

I concur with royal marine, move the thread, and move the language. Speaking of immature....

royal marine

06-05-2005, 02:20 PM

bloody is british i cant be bothered to tell a yank wat it is

soulchild

06-05-2005, 04:43 PM

bloody is british i cant be bothered to tell a yank wat it is

?????????????????????????????????????

I didn't think that royal marines were so sensitive

So what does bloddy mean?

royal marine

06-06-2005, 11:00 AM

sorry mate errrrrrr.... basically u know when u say ****ing hell...our version is bloody hell but we still use ****ing hell

Aravis

06-13-2005, 01:27 AM

what reason OTHER than pride, do women have, to join the military, gimme one other reason, there is none, women are always trying to be equal to men, because of what??? pride. and remember people that pride, is the route to all evils, that includes mistakes on the battlefield resulting in disaster, plus we need the best out there and you wont find the best in women when it comes to war, ALL EVIL, and that's a FACT.
"What reason other than pride, do women have, to join the military"??? The same as men. With your line of reasoning there is no reason for men to join either.
Womens role in a society has always been to give birth to children (everyone with me so far??) and to take care of these children and defend their homes if the men are out hunting or working or something. So I'm guessing there are a lot of women in the US who feel that the whole country is their home, and that they need to defend it. It has nothing to do with pride (or no more than it does for any man serving).

And why rangerzrock, do you want to be a ranger? Anything to do with pride?? Okay, there are no women in there, which is a good thing for you since you seem to feel so increadibly threatened by us, but you also want to be one of the toughest, the strongest, the fastest, and if wanting all that is not a sign of pride, then I don't know what is!

best_ranger

06-17-2005, 12:21 AM

"What reason other than pride, do women have, to join the military"??? The same as men. With your line of reasoning there is no reason for men to join either.
Womens role in a society has always been to give birth to children (everyone with me so far??) and to take care of these children and defend their homes if the men are out hunting or working or something. So I'm guessing there are a lot of women in the US who feel that the whole country is their home, and that they need to defend it. It has nothing to do with pride (or no more than it does for any man serving).

And why rangerzrock, do you want to be a ranger? Anything to do with pride?? Okay, there are no women in there, which is a good thing for you since you seem to feel so increadibly threatened by us, but you also want to be one of the toughest, the strongest, the fastest, and if wanting all that is not a sign of pride, then I don't know what is!

ok quit pickin on the lttle guy, i can answer this one, men are in the army because someone must do the job, and the best people for the job are men right? right! someone needs to fight, and if you ask the question: why men? then i can easily answer that, it's because men are made to be tough and to fight. women are just, uh un. and don't get mad at him because he wants to serve his country that is just wrong, just plain wrong. men were made for combat they're bodies are good and tough, women were however Not made for combat and they're bodies are not tough, what is wrong with wanting to be the best??? anyone has the right to be the best, but not anyone has the right or shouldn't have the right to do the job that was given to the opposite sex, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about aravis so shut up and go on a different site if you want to talk about crap.

andoman_42

06-17-2005, 03:20 AM

Aravis

06-17-2005, 03:50 AM

ok quit pickin on the lttle guy, i can answer this one, men are in the army because someone must do the job, and the best people for the job are men right? right! someone needs to fight, and if you ask the question: why men? then i can easily answer that, it's because men are made to be tough and to fight. women are just, uh un. and don't get mad at him because he wants to serve his country that is just wrong, just plain wrong. men were made for combat they're bodies are good and tough, women were however Not made for combat and they're bodies are not tough, what is wrong with wanting to be the best??? anyone has the right to be the best, but not anyone has the right or shouldn't have the right to do the job that was given to the opposite sex, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about aravis so shut up and go on a different site if you want to talk about crap.
I'm not mad at the litte dude because he wants to serve his country, I'm mad at him (as I'm now mad at you) because he still thinks womens role is in the kitchen making supper! And yes, the strongest man will always be stronger than the strongest woman, but that doesn't mean that women can't be strong, and that men can't be weak. And if a woman wants to serve her country, should she just say "well, too bad I was born a woman, I'll just get pregnant instead" Try and come up with some new arguments to why women shouldn't be allowed to serve, or just stop bitching about it!

And actually, you sound a lot like rangerzrock, so it wouldn't surprise me if you and he are the same person, or if you're his bigbrother or cousin. He's shown before that he can stand up for himself, so why don't you let him do just that?!

js_mac

06-17-2005, 08:11 AM

Aravis

06-17-2005, 08:51 AM

I think i've said this before, but think back to when we were cavemen. Women were in the caves cooking and gossiping. This is why women have a natural indifference to doing housework - my mum doesn't like it, but she just does it cos she is born like that.... all women are the same (except dykes - i hate dykes). It is also why women talk more than men - because they had to sit in caves all day, and evolved this ability to keep themselves amused.
Men, on the other hand, were out hunting and doing all the physical work etc, which is why men read maps better, are twice as strong, tougher - both physically and mentally, and fitter. They also evolved soldiering skills and tactical minds which women didn't, as they were fighting the wars, and hunting etc. Women didn't evolve these - they physically dont have the ability to soldier effectively, contrary to what ****ty movies like GI Jane say. Imagine any girl you know on the front getting shot at. I am, and i KNOW they would get wasted. There isn't such a thing as a strong women - purely because there was no need for them to evolve (men were the only ones that needed to be this).
The army has got people with a lot more knowledge than us to study this, and they say that women can't fight for ****, so accept it.
Those cavewomen were out gathering seeds, fruit and berries while the men were out hunting. And they dried the food they gathered, and the meat the men could bring home. And they hunted smaller animals like rabbits and squirrels and birds. And they took care of the kids. They didn't have much time to sit around and chat! And when the men were out hunting and lions or tigers or hyenas or whatever animals which liked human flesh came to their caves, who do you think defended the food, the children and their livingarea?? The women!
And dykes, as you call them, what do they have to do with anything? You're just threatened by them because you don't understand how any woman could give up wanting to have kids. But I'll tell you something: There are non-lesbian women who don't want kids! You hate us too??
Another reason why some men hate lesbians: They (the men) are afraid that they will become obsolete now that women can satisfy other women sexually!

js_mac

06-17-2005, 09:39 AM

Those cavewomen were out gathering seeds, fruit and berries while the men were out hunting. And they dried the food they gathered, and the meat the men could bring home. And they hunted smaller animals like rabbits and squirrels and birds. And they took care of the kids. They didn't have much time to sit around and chat! And when the men were out hunting and lions or tigers or hyenas or whatever animals which liked human flesh came to their caves, who do you think defended the food, the children and their livingarea?? The women!
And dykes, as you call them, what do they have to do with anything? You're just threatened by them because you don't understand how any woman could give up wanting to have kids. But I'll tell you something: There are non-lesbian women who don't want kids! You hate us too??
Another reason why some men hate lesbians: They (the men) are afraid that they will become obsolete now that women can satisfy other women sexually!

They obviously did have time to sit around and chat, seeing as they evolved it. I didn't just make that whole post up, based on my own opinions - this was people with PhDs in evolutionary biology that discovered this. IT IS FACT that women are less physically capable, and can't fight as well as men. I'm guessing that you're one of those bloody feminists who won't accept that men and women are different; well, guess what, they are.
Dykes are different, because they are cunts and want to show that they're different. I'm not threatened by dykes!! Why would i be - they're insecure idiots who are obsessed with proving that they're better than men. Every dyke i've met is a sexist ho who would be happy to see men die out. You really think there's much for me to like? Also, I don't care about them enough to want to understand them.
No, i'm not worried that men become obsolete.... that applies to men as well, you know? I've met more gay men than lezzers, so it's women who should be worried.

best_ranger

06-18-2005, 11:18 PM

I'm not mad at the litte dude because he wants to serve his country, I'm mad at him (as I'm now mad at you) because he still thinks womens role is in the kitchen making supper! And yes, the strongest man will always be stronger than the strongest woman, but that doesn't mean that women can't be strong, and that men can't be weak. And if a woman wants to serve her country, should she just say "well, too bad I was born a woman, I'll just get pregnant instead" Try and come up with some new arguments to why women shouldn't be allowed to serve, or just stop bitching about it!

And actually, you sound a lot like rangerzrock, so it wouldn't surprise me if you and he are the same person, or if you're his bigbrother or cousin. He's shown before that he can stand up for himself, so why don't you let him do just that?!

yes your job IS that, and there are many different kinds of pride:

selfish pride
pride of accomplishment
morale,

those are just 3 of them and the only ones involved in this argument,

but now pride of accomplishment is a good thing, one must be a lttle proud of their accomplishments you know, and pride of accomplishment leads to high morale which is very important cause if one does not have morale then one despairs and commits suicide, so pride of accomplishment is a good thing,

going to selfish pride, that is the kind that women have to want to be in the army, they are selfish to think that they can outmatch the men, they have this kind of pride and this kind of pride leads to evil,

so if you don't understand this that you are dumb period.

as for being his cousin or sumthing, i have never met the kid in my life, i am just someone who has common sense unlike you, so continue making supper, mmmm i can smell it already.

best_ranger

06-18-2005, 11:23 PM

Ok, so what is the difference nowadays when the military is going towards automation and smart weapons.....a woman can just as easily pull the trigger as a man.....or push the BIIIG red button......anyway......the infantry nowadays is mechanized and there is no more the 50 km walk every day to move from one engagement to another(ok, this is an assumption as I have never been in a war). You get your humvees or choppers to take you wherever the fighting is.....so even if women does not have the physical stamina as men they don´t perhaps need as much anymore either.....or is it so that men are afraid that women also can fight and might sometimes be even better?

it takes more than pulling a trigger to be in army, the infantry is actually not all mechanized, there is quite a bit of foot slogging in modern combat, we still use guns such as assault rifles sub-machine guns and machine guns, and snipers ect, so if a women can pull a trigger and push a red button i couldn't care less, it takes more than that to be a REAL solder, it takes a man.

Aravis

06-19-2005, 02:28 PM

going to selfish pride, that is the kind that women have to want to be in the army, they are selfish to think that they can outmatch the men, they have this kind of pride and this kind of pride leads to evilNobody has said women want to outmatch the men, they just want to help, and they are helping, it's just you prejudice idiots with your conservative views that won't see the truth.

And why is it if a man has pride then that is a good thing, but if a woman has it it's bad and selfish? How can wanting to serve your country, protect yours and risking your own life to help others be selfish?
It's time you woke up to the 21th century already! You're living in the past!

js_mac

06-19-2005, 07:43 PM

Nobody has said women want to outmatch the men, they just want to help, and they are helping, it's just you prejudice idiots with your conservative views that won't see the truth.

And why is it if a man has pride then that is a good thing, but if a woman has it it's bad and selfish? How can wanting to serve your country, protect yours and risking your own life to help others be selfish?
It's time you woke up to the 21th century already! You're living in the past!

Ironically, it's conservatism that lets society progress - contrary to what you liberal mtv-generation idiots think. For example, i'm not sexist or racist, but i think that women are less important than men (not worse people), and i know that certain races are inferior to others (but i don't hate them for it). I'm not afraid to say it (in real life that is - not on this). It's liberalism that tells us women are the same and all races are equal etc, so progression of society is hindered, because of things like affirmative action/positive discrimination, which allows inferior people to have their way.
You see, you're more prejudice than me - i think my views for a reason, not because "i'm scared of change"; whilst you automatically assume everyone is equal.

Also, i've noticed that you completely ignored my last post. Well, seeing as i proved you wrong, i can understand why that is.

soulchild

06-19-2005, 07:47 PM

Ironically, it's conservatism that lets society progress - contrary to what you liberal mtv-generation idiots think. For example, i'm not sexist or racist, but i think that women are less important than men (not worse people), and i know that certain races are inferior to others (but i don't hate them for it). I'm not afraid to say it (in real life that is - not on this). It's liberalism that tells us women are the same and all races are equal etc, so progression of society is hindered, because of things like affirmative action/positive discrimination, which allows inferior people to have their way.
You see, you're more prejudice than me - i think my views for a reason, not because "i'm scared of change"; whilst you automatically assume everyone is equal.

Also, i've noticed that you completely ignored my last post. Well, seeing as i proved you wrong, i can understand why that is.

I'm just interested, which races do you think are the best/ worst and why do you think this way?

js_mac

06-19-2005, 09:11 PM

best_ranger

06-19-2005, 09:17 PM

aravis you obviously did not read my last post, it is easy to find out what kind of pride is involved with what. for instance it takes selfish pride to want a job that one shouldn't have, now am i getting through? or do you have some **** in your ear

best_ranger

06-19-2005, 09:21 PM

First, I'm white if you didn't know. Em, in terms of intelligence, competence at creating civilisation etc, i would undoubtedly say that orientals and europeans (esp. northern and western) are the best, (although i think orientals are a bit perverse and cruel at times). I think this because, basically, every country that is ran in some way by them does better than others, and all scientific discoveries are made by them.
In this category, blacks come last by a mile. You only have to look at africa - it is a ****ing mess - civil wars, corrupt governments etc. Liberals say it's because we exploit them, but we have given more than $1 trillion in aid to africa, yet they can't pick themselves up. They are older peoples than us, but we have ALWAYS been richer and more civilised than them. I know a black zimbabwean who admits that it's the blacks own fault - he says they're too lazy and incompetent to get going, and how africa was FAR better when under the control of the european colonial powers. Keeping on this, i mean, we did give them a good boost - we taught them civilisation etc, yet, a couple of months after we leave them too it, they fall apart. My mum knows a white guy who owned a farm in southern africa somewhere, but was chucked out by some racist black government, and the farm given to a black family. He went back to the farm a few years later and it's gone broke because the africans couldn't run it properly.
Do you not find it wierd that the country in africa with the highest white population is also the richest (south africa)?
These inherant black traits can see by seen in our countries by the jump in crime rates and wealth when you go to black areas, and the fact that most racist crimes are committed by blacks. I sound racist here, but i don't dislike blacks as people - i just think they're different. In fact, i hate the left-wing whites who say they're equal more than anyone.

There's hundreds of races though - it isn't just white, black etc. so it'd take a good while to go over them all... every race has their good points, just some more than others. You'd be plain dumb to ignore the role that different cultures and environments played on the evolution of different races.

well not all blacks are like that you know, but the natives that are in north america are being quite a problem, in the u.s here we kicked them out cause they wouldn't work and then they'd critisize us for taking their land and then they'd take all our tax money, now it's even worse above in canada, the natives are being a huge problem and arent helping society in the least bit, they are always the ones doing to stealing usually, and in a few towns up north ther are a few gangs taht were made by natives, and they are always the ones getting drunk and abusing drugs and alchahol, i'm not saying that we white men don't do it, but they're majority is doing it way more, i'm not getting mad at them for they're color i'm not a racist, but i'm just saying that those natives are the laziest, alchaholics in north america, i repeat that i'm not saying that about them for they're color, i'm saying this cause it's true. and js_mac i agree with your statement on women being in the army. ;)

andoman_42

06-20-2005, 12:06 AM

it takes more than pulling a trigger to be in army, the infantry is actually not all mechanized, there is quite a bit of foot slogging in modern combat, we still use guns such as assault rifles sub-machine guns and machine guns, and snipers ect, so if a women can pull a trigger and push a red button i couldn't care less, it takes more than that to be a REAL solder, it takes a man.

Yes, you are correct that it takes more than just pulling a trigger.....I generalized perhaps a bit too much.....but now your saying that women cannot use submachine guns, sniper rifles.....so is it that only men are intelligent or strong enough to lift up a rifle/SMG/HMG.....aim at the target.....and shoot??????? I say it only is about practice.....anybody can do it after they recieve proper training.

As for the foot slogging it could be that women does not have the stamina as men but that can also be improved with physical training......

Aravis

06-20-2005, 03:44 AM

Okay guys, I'm sorry that I've "ignored" some of your posts, but I've been gone the whole weekend, and came home late yesterday.

First up, I can't believe any of you would even say that you are not racist!!! The reason Africa is poor is that it is impossible to farm the land; it's just too dry. There are too many people, poor people always have bigger families because the chance of their children dieing is bigger than the chance of rich peoples children dieing, and there it's custom for the children to take care of their parents when these are old.
And leaving people with no experience of being in charge of anything to take care of a farm is just plain stupid! Someone has to be taught to take care of the economy on the farm, how much seeds to buy, how much to sell, it's not enough that they know how to grow things, the rest needs to be taken care of too. And that their great grandparents knew how to do that, doesn't mean that they are born with it, it just means that someone taught them.
The same goes for their governments, the situation of being left alone for the first time in several decades is new and it would be a wonder if they could get the country up and going without help (I'm not talking about financial help).

As for blacks in the states. They grow up feeling the hatred and contempt you guys are showing. They are not given proper education, and they can't get it for themselfes, because they don't have the funding for it. And it's the same from generation to generation. When they haven't had any food on the table for many days because their white employer sacked them for sneezing on the job and no lawyer wants to take their case for free because they're black, they turn to stealing from those who have something worth stealing; white people. I'm not saying it's not a big problem, and I'm really not saying it's easy to fix. What I'm saying is that they are not born with less physical or mental opportunities than others, just less financial opportunities.

best_ranger, either you don't know what you're talking about, or you are really bad at explaining, because you haven't made a point. Women can feel pride of accomplishment by accomplishing something in the army. You have some weird hatred towards all women who don't want to stay at home raising kids and making supper, and you think everything a woman does beyond this is selfish of her. Well, you have your views of the matter, which in my opinion are extremely prejudice and wrong, but I can see that I can't convince you otherwise, just as you could never convince me to stay at home giving birth and bringing more brats like you into this world (of course, if I had any kids, I would raise them to respect women, not hate them like you do!)

To js_mac: IT IS FACT that women are less physically capable, and can't fight as well as men. I'm guessing that you're one of those bloody feminists who won't accept that men and women are different; well, guess what, they are.
I know very well that men and women are different. I'm not a feminist and I don't think all women are fit to be in the army. But I believe that the best women can be at least as strong and fit as the average man, so I don't see why you want to eliminate all women from the army. I think men and women should have the same physical requirements when enlisting. That would weed out those women who are not strong enough and would eliminate this discussion about women in the army. There should always be a vast majority of men in the army, I have never said anything in the contrary to that, it's you who have interpreted my words in your own way.
When it comes to PhDs in evolutionary biology, anything said in those papers are theories, nothing is fact. Fact is something we have full knowlegde of, and we will never have complete facts of how cavepeople lived.
But why did you even mention dykes?? That's what I don't get. Mentioning them didn't help prove any of your points, they didn't have anything to do with the conversation, so why did you even mention them???

soulchild

06-20-2005, 07:05 AM

First, I'm white if you didn't know. Em, in terms of intelligence, competence at creating civilisation etc, i would undoubtedly say that orientals and europeans (esp. northern and western) are the best, (although i think orientals are a bit perverse and cruel at times). I think this because, basically, every country that is ran in some way by them does better than others, and all scientific discoveries are made by them.
In this category, blacks come last by a mile. You only have to look at africa - it is a ****ing mess - civil wars, corrupt governments etc. Liberals say it's because we exploit them, but we have given more than $1 trillion in aid to africa, yet they can't pick themselves up. They are older peoples than us, but we have ALWAYS been richer and more civilised than them. I know a black zimbabwean who admits that it's the blacks own fault - he says they're too lazy and incompetent to get going, and how africa was FAR better when under the control of the european colonial powers. Keeping on this, i mean, we did give them a good boost - we taught them civilisation etc, yet, a couple of months after we leave them too it, they fall apart. My mum knows a white guy who owned a farm in southern africa somewhere, but was chucked out by some racist black government, and the farm given to a black family. He went back to the farm a few years later and it's gone broke because the africans couldn't run it properly.
Do you not find it wierd that the country in africa with the highest white population is also the richest (south africa)?
These inherant black traits can see by seen in our countries by the jump in crime rates and wealth when you go to black areas, and the fact that most racist crimes are committed by blacks. I sound racist here, but i don't dislike blacks as people - i just think they're different. In fact, i hate the left-wing whites who say they're equal more than anyone.

There's hundreds of races though - it isn't just white, black etc. so it'd take a good while to go over them all... every race has their good points, just some more than others. You'd be plain dumb to ignore the role that different cultures and environments played on the evolution of different races.

I guess u never heard of Egypit, or Kush both highly successful civilations. I'll agree w/ you that white people have run the course of world history for the last 1000 years excluding the Muslims who ran **** from the fall of the Roman empire until the crusades.
As it refers to Africa, ov course it's ****ed up. When you have a foreign country ruling you for years, subjugating your people and limiting your opportiunites to advance yourselves your not going to be able to run a country and not be selfish. You also have to take into account the diversity in culture groups inside one African state as a cause for internal strife.
Also, don't forget that the European powers didn't pull outta Africa because they were nice, they did so because the stripped the content of it's most valuable resouces, and the resources that are still there (ex. diamonds) are still run by predominatly white owned companies. We can see the strife that directly results from theese factors in teh allmost constatnt warring going on. Also, the money that goes to Africa isn't givin because they European powers are so nice, it goes to those who support their agendas, not nessicarily the people that need the money the most of would spend it in the most humanitarian way.

And to those who speak on the North American black man. Although most don't like to admit it the American black man is lost. Lost because he does not know who he is. The greatest rammification of slavery that still exists with us is the lack of an idenity. The North American black man does not know who he is because it's impossible to know who you are without knowing where you come from. Sure you can say Africa, but Africa is ****ing HUGE. Did they come from East or West Africa, North or South? Think about how much pride people have in their heritage, but you look at the American black man and he can respond with nothing, his great grandparents were thought to be pieces of property, and 3/5ths of a person. Also, the fact can't be ignored that in America 50 years ago a black man couldn't vote in some states.

**waits for the get over it responses from people**

js_mac

06-20-2005, 07:28 AM

First up, I can't believe any of you would even say that you are not racist!!! The reason Africa is poor is that it is impossible to farm the land; it's just too dry. There are too many people, poor people always have bigger families because the chance of their children dieing is bigger than the chance of rich peoples children dieing, and there it's custom for the children to take care of their parents when these are old.

I knew you would say that! That's just bull**** propaganda. Pah, the land is too dry...:confused:. You see, it's the leftists who have to invent a reason why africa is so ****, and, simply enough, they don't have one, so they invent bull**** like that. Firstly, the driest part of africa is north africa, where the sahara desert is. These countries are run by the more competent arabs, who learnt from their european colonisers and built self-sustainable countries. The rest of africa is either jungle or terrain no different in harshness to the mediterranean. You see, the africans, however, are too incompetent to filter sea water, create reservoirs or dig pumps themselves. It's the truth, simple enough.

And leaving people with no experience of being in charge of anything to take care of a farm is just plain stupid! Someone has to be taught to take care of the economy on the farm, how much seeds to buy, how much to sell, it's not enough that they know how to grow things, the rest needs to be taken care of too. And that their great grandparents knew how to do that, doesn't mean that they are born with it, it just means that someone taught them.
The same goes for their governments, the situation of being left alone for the first time in several decades is new and it would be a wonder if they could get the country up and going without help (I'm not talking about financial help).

Em, your point is?? The white farmers came to africa, where the terrain was like no other they had seen, but they used their resourcefulness to create a sustainable economy. If reference to my previous example, the africans who came to take the farm from the guy my mum knew were farmers before, and just piled all their crops on the one bit of land, ruining its productivity. They were also too lazy to remedy this. You really think that everything humans do is taught? They have been in africa for millions of years - i think they should have an idea now, AND there is the fact that EVERY black country is ridiculously poor.
What the ****, the situation of being left alone.....? that applies to every country that used to be an imperial colony - india, canada, you, etc. Also, think about countries like germany, vietnam etc who were absolutely wrecked by war, but brought themselves back up. We did give them help - we taught them how to run a country - we didn't just **** off and leave them to it.

As for blacks in the states. They grow up feeling the hatred and contempt you guys are showing. They are not given proper education, and they can't get it for themselfes, because they don't have the funding for it. And it's the same from generation to generation. When they haven't had any food on the table for many days because their white employer sacked them for sneezing on the job and no lawyer wants to take their case for free because they're black, they turn to stealing from those who have something worth stealing; white people. I'm not saying it's not a big problem, and I'm really not saying it's easy to fix. What I'm saying is that they are not born with less physical or mental opportunities than others, just less financial opportunities.

Again, left-wing bull**** propaganda. Blacks have it easier than whites in western countries now thanks to affirmative action - better job prospects, better chance of getting into a good university etc. You see, if an identical black and white applied for the same job post, the black would get it, due to fear of the company being branded "racist". They're also immune to being told off for being racist - unlike whites.

I know very well that men and women are different. I'm not a feminist and I don't think all women are fit to be in the army. But I believe that the best women can be at least as strong and fit as the average man, so I don't see why you want to eliminate all women from the army. I think men and women should have the same physical requirements when enlisting.

Woman, could be as strong and fit, but not as good at soldiering. I don't know how to get you to believe this, but women CANNOT FIGHT AS WELL AS MEN. They physically don't have the ability. It's like me trying to do the long jump at the olympics... where, imagine the athletes with the ability, as the male-soldiers in this case, except their ability is born into them. I (the women) would fail, because i don't have the ability. The only time i can think of women fighting in a war, was the first world war, where only "tough" women were recruited. Guess what, they were slaughtered to an unbelievable degree. Those women fight have been as fit, or fitter than some of the men soldiers as well.

andoman_42

06-20-2005, 08:24 AM

Woman, could be as strong and fit, but not as good at soldiering. I don't know how to get you to believe this, but women CANNOT FIGHT AS WELL AS MEN. They physically don't have the ability. It's like me trying to do the long jump at the olympics... where, imagine the athletes with the ability, as the male-soldiers in this case, except their ability is born into them. I (the women) would fail, because i don't have the ability. The only time i can think of women fighting in a war, was the first world war, where only "tough" women were recruited. Guess what, they were slaughtered to an unbelievable degree. Those women fight have been as fit, or fitter than some of the men soldiers as well.

Hmmm, how do you mean they physically do not have the ability? How are they then practicing different martial arts? Boxing? Fencing? Is it so that you mean that they are not capable of killing? How many convicted women killers are there then sitting in different prisons?

And how can you then claim that the males have the fighting ability from birth? Are there any scientific studies made on the subject? Or are there any studies on why women cannot be good soldiers? What is your basis on this claim that women cannot be good soldiers?

A note about the Great War.....it wasn´t only the women who got slaughtered....men were also slaughtered.....in insane amounts.....only because they went "over the top". There was no sound tactics in WWI in the trenchwarfare so that does not prove anything about women and fighting.....

js_mac

06-20-2005, 08:59 AM

Hmmm, how do you mean they physically do not have the ability? How are they then practicing different martial arts? Boxing? Fencing? Is it so that you mean that they are not capable of killing? How many convicted women killers are there then sitting in different prisons?

And how can you then claim that the males have the fighting ability from birth? Are there any scientific studies made on the subject? Or are there any studies on why women cannot be good soldiers? What is your basis on this claim that women cannot be good soldiers?

A note about the Great War.....it wasn´t only the women who got slaughtered....men were also slaughtered.....in insane amounts.....only because they went "over the top". There was no sound tactics in WWI in the trenchwarfare so that does not prove anything about women and fighting.....

The don't have the genes that code for good fighting. Sure they can train, but they won't be as naturally good as men. I could probably get the woman's world record at the 100m - no joke. Yes, they can't kill. 2 in 100 men are capable of killing. Of those, one is psychotic and the other just has the ability. Women only come in psycho.
Yes, they are studies. I'm not a scientist, so I don't have them here in my room, but there are. Testosterone makes men more aggressive, stronger and fitter than women - THAT IS FACT. Remember my point about the evolution of humans - women have NEVER fought in battles, so haven't evolved the required abilites - TRUE. Your argument is just incorrect, period. It's just your pride that's keeping you from accepting it.
Also, that battle in the great war was actually during the russian revolution, to be precise, not the trenches - and the women got ***-raped BY MEN... untrained men at that.
Face it, for ****'s sake, you damn feminist - women can't fight. Our world is so PC these days that it's undoubtable that women would be allowed to fight if they could, but they can't!!!

js_mac

06-20-2005, 09:07 AM

I guess u never heard of Egypit, or Kush both highly successful civilations. I'll agree w/ you that white people have run the course of world history for the last 1000 years excluding the Muslims who ran **** from the fall of the Roman empire until the crusades.
As it refers to Africa, ov course it's ****ed up. When you have a foreign country ruling you for years, subjugating your people and limiting your opportiunites to advance yourselves your not going to be able to run a country and not be selfish. You also have to take into account the diversity in culture groups inside one African state as a cause for internal strife.
Also, don't forget that the European powers didn't pull outta Africa because they were nice, they did so because the stripped the content of it's most valuable resouces, and the resources that are still there (ex. diamonds) are still run by predominatly white owned companies. We can see the strife that directly results from theese factors in teh allmost constatnt warring going on. Also, the money that goes to Africa isn't givin because they European powers are so nice, it goes to those who support their agendas, not nessicarily the people that need the money the most of would spend it in the most humanitarian way.

And to those who speak on the North American black man. Although most don't like to admit it the American black man is lost. Lost because he does not know who he is. The greatest rammification of slavery that still exists with us is the lack of an idenity. The North American black man does not know who he is because it's impossible to know who you are without knowing where you come from. Sure you can say Africa, but Africa is ****ing HUGE. Did they come from East or West Africa, North or South? Think about how much pride people have in their heritage, but you look at the American black man and he can respond with nothing, his great grandparents were thought to be pieces of property, and 3/5ths of a person. Also, the fact can't be ignored that in America 50 years ago a black man couldn't vote in some states.

Egyptians etc are not black - they're arab. Muslims ran it for a while because the fall of the roman empire created a huge depression in europe. Arabs are, however, more competent than blacks. Your point about the european powers' domination causing africa's problems - if anything, it made them better. Look at india, australia, canada, the US, israel, etc - they all learned from us.
No, actually, they left africa because the 2nd world war had left their economy too fragile, and after ghandi's uprising in india, and the rise of post-nazi liberalism, european countries felt it was the good thing to do (ie immoral to subjectate people who have no need to be subjectated). Actually, the europeans discovere these resources which were previously unknown, and started huge industries with them - these are still the only thing keeping africa going, apart from aid packets. You make about the whites to be the bad guys, and the blacks to be the poor, exploited people - that's exactly what i said you would say (africa's problems are caused by western exploitation) but if we had left africa completely on its own; no colonisation etc, they would still be living 5000 years in the past, and would have probably less than 1/100 of their present population, due to inability so sustain it.
Africans ARE incompetent - remember i said i know a black zimbabwean who even admitted that all africa's problems were caused by the blacks, and how africa was a far better place during the colonial days.

HAHA you are actually claiming that black people's problems in the US are caused by not knowing which part of africa they came from... man that is amazing. If i didn't know where i came from, i wouldn't sit around all day mugging old people... that is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard. You do know we have blacks in the UK, who emigrated here in the '60s - they know where they come from, and they still are ****. We used to have no gun problems here, but the black gangs in england have started copying the US... there's shootings all the time now by these gangs; black areas are no-go-zones for whites, etc.
(white) Women couldn't vote a few years ago... they don't go around shooting people and sitting on their asses.

royal marine

06-20-2005, 11:02 AM

yer i agree with everything that js mac and best ranger said.....women simply cannot do it at all....and if they can pull a trigger...***tido cos you need LOADS more than that to be a soldier...and whats that about a woman getting a silver star in america......over here they arent even aloud to be at the frontlines...just signal,engineers and MPs.....but soviet russia did make a frigging lot of women fight gainst the krauts in WW2.....they were snipers but nothing else....but russia would never do that again they just needed a lot of men especially after stalingrad and kharkov,as i always say.....russia were better than all of us in WW2 and had it much worse on the russian front...read sven hassel books on how he fought the ruskies he'll tell you

andoman_42

06-20-2005, 11:17 AM

The don't have the genes that code for good fighting. Sure they can train, but they won't be as naturally good as men. I could probably get the woman's world record at the 100m - no joke. Yes, they can't kill. 2 in 100 men are capable of killing. Of those, one is psychotic and the other just has the ability. Women only come in psycho.
Yes, they are studies. I'm not a scientist, so I don't have them here in my room, but there are. Testosterone makes men more aggressive, stronger and fitter than women - THAT IS FACT. Remember my point about the evolution of humans - women have NEVER fought in battles, so haven't evolved the required abilites - TRUE. Your argument is just incorrect, period. It's just your pride that's keeping you from accepting it.
Also, that battle in the great war was actually during the russian revolution, to be precise, not the trenches - and the women got ***-raped BY MEN... untrained men at that.
Face it, for ****'s sake, you damn feminist - women can't fight. Our world is so PC these days that it's undoubtable that women would be allowed to fight if they could, but they can't!!!

Right, firstly I´m not a feminist(although I do like women ;-) ) and I resent namecalling. I´m only trying to have an open discussion which sems to be to much asked.

I tried to look thru my previous post but I couldn´t find where I claimed that women could be as good as men....I said they could be good soldiers......never claimed that they could be as good as men.

The world record for women for 100m is 10.49 so go ahead....knock yourself out.

You state that women have NEVER fought in battles.....how can you then state that they cannot be good soldiers if they never have been in battles? Nothing as good as empiric testing to prove a point.....therefore I cannot prove my point here either =)

I have to look up the thing you mention about the russian revolution to comment on it, so therefor I will let it be for now. That was anyway a very "fair fight" the whole revolution....so that´s a very good event to use as "evidence".....

And my pride is very fine, thank you very much.....I love good arguments and debates.....

js_mac

06-20-2005, 01:39 PM

I really have no idea how to get this into your head. You're bloody unbelievable. I don't have the test results, or surveys right here, ok???? I have, however, seen research, and have heard army spokesmen saying they don't recruit women for combat because of endangering operational efficiency. i have told you before THEY DON'T HAVE THE GENETIC ABILITY TO FIGHT - they didn't evolve it, ok?? Are you not familiar with the theory of evolution? Organisms can't just mysteriously happen to have an ability without the need to evolve it.... women never fought, nor hunted, nor did physical work to the extent of men, so they didn't evolve it.
No, in fact, it wasn't the entire red army against a couple of women; it was an entire woman's battalion against an angry mob. Guess what, the women who did fight all died, after fighting miserably and the rest surrendered. It was a female teacher who told me all this as well. Woman are THE worst possible soldiers - you don't have the aggression from testosterone, or the physical ability to soldier.
Avaris took it well - why can't you get over yourself and accept it too. I get a feeling that, no matter what, you're not going to.
And i can do the 100m in 11.5s (truthfully) - does that mean that I (a normal guy) am of olympic standard amongst women at the 100m??? Point proven.

andoman_42

06-20-2005, 09:30 PM

Fine.....whatever......as you seem to be 100% right(in your opinion at least) let´s say it is so..........

Aravis

06-21-2005, 04:55 AM

By js_mac:
Avaris took it well - why can't you get over yourself and accept it too. I get a feeling that, no matter what, you're not going to.
I never said I agree with you 100%, because I don't think you're right. You say that no women can be good soldiers and that all men can, and I say that some women can be good soldiers, wheras not all men can.

And please try to get into your head that andoman_42 is a man, he said he is in an earlier post, why can't you take his word for it?

What's more: You are not always right. Neither am I, or anyone else for that matter. To have strong opinions might be a good thing, but to be completely unable to admit that you might be wrong and learn from your mistakes will not get you very far in life. Never say never is a good rule of thumb to live by.

js_mac

06-21-2005, 06:37 PM

Avaris took it well - why can't you get over yourself and accept it too. I get a feeling that, no matter what, you're not going to.
I never said I agree with you 100%, because I don't think you're right. You say that no women can be good soldiers and that all men can, and I say that some women can be good soldiers, wheras not all men can.

And please try to get into your head that andoman_42 is a man, he said he is in an earlier post, why can't you take his word for it?

What's more: You are not always right. Neither am I, or anyone else for that matter. To have strong opinions might be a good thing, but to be completely unable to admit that you might be wrong and learn from your mistakes will not get you very far in life. Never say never is a good rule of thumb to live by.

I'm not an arrogant person. You can disagree all you like, but I know when I'm right, and I'm right about this. Bloody hell, he's a man?!

best_ranger

06-21-2005, 08:52 PM

umm one minor note though js_mac the theory of evolution has been 100% proven to be false by scientists, biologists, theologians, philosophers and the rest of that jazz, BUT it is true women do NOT have the abilities to fight at all whatsoever period. aravis you are the biggest, femenist ***** i've come across in my whole life, get this straight you cow that women can't or at least shouldn't be in the army, their bodies were not made to do a man's job, the military was made to separate the men from the boys not hte women from the girls, cause notice that written their are the 2 words MEN and BOYS not WOMEN and GIRLS, you know why? cause women suck in the military period, therefore they shouldn't be there i mean did you ever send a female elk to go spear an enemy??? no. why??? cause they don't have antlers, so the same way in human life, women don't have antlers or the strength and stamina to be in the military, has anyone ever seen the best ranger anual competition? that thing i swear is the hardest damn training in the bloody world, they choose the best rangers in the u.s.a to go to the home of the infantry for benning georgia, and then they do 3 straight days of extreme excrutiating training, ussualy they only get about 2 hrs of sleep in the whole competition, and this years competition there were 23 teams (each team has 2 men cause of the ranger creed "i will leave no fallen comrade to the enemy") and out of the 23 only 11 teams finished the competition, that's how damn hard this thing was, it started with the malvesti obstacle course, and then a run, swim, run race, (2 miles running, 200 mtr's swimming, then another 2 miles running) then after that they did 80 push-ups and 60 chin ups in a row, (you needed at least 50 push ups and 45 chin-ups to get through) and then after that they did a 21 mile road march, with 65 lbs. rucksacks on their back, out of that race 13 teams made it to the finish line, then they did the darby queen, and a day of competition called the day stakes wich included a stress shoot, a grenade combat assault, a excercise where they played the role of 2 rangers to be the first ones on the scene of a badly wounded ranger to see what the men would do. and a 200 mtr. climb up a rope then a rappel down. and then they did a water confidence test, and then they did a helo-cast and swim race, and then they did a night orienteering competition where you had to find at least 6 out of 12 targets spread out in rough terrain using a map and compass in the dark. and to finish they did a 2 mile buddy race to see if the rangers' strength was still there, it was a gruelling 3 days,

now if you are telling me that a woman would be able to make it through something like that then you are doing a grave lie,

andoman_42

06-21-2005, 09:50 PM

js_mac

06-22-2005, 05:55 AM

It's got nothing to do with narrow-mindedness on my part. I would actually say it's you who's guilty of that. You see, you have no evidence, whereas I have science proving me right... in other words, it's you messed-up socialist views that prevent you from even considering that not every human being is the same. I'm not a moron, nor a bigot - I don't base my opinions on my own personal beliefs; i argue for what is true, based on evidence. You, on the other hand, have a personal view that you don't want people to be treated inequally (obviously) which clouds your argument. I'm a realist, I dislike a lot of people, but I think people should be treated equally, but not given equal opportunites when they are not capable of fulfilling them. (i.e. women in the military etc etc).

I did some checkup yesterday and noticed that there has been at least one chivalric order for women in Aragon, then in Japan women were trained with naginatas to fight and there were other mentions of women warriors.....so it seems that at least some women know how to fight.....but I don´t really have the energy to debate this anymore as it seems that some people here have too strong personal opinions and cannot/will not look at issues from a more objective side.
Reply With Quote

Of bloody course women have been used to fight at times - often because people hold your views, and because of dire need for soldiers. They still don't fight as well as men. I really give up - you are ignorant, plain enough; i've told you enough to convince you that you're wrong, but you won't listen..... WOMEN HAVEN'T EVOLVED THE ABILITY TO FIGHT, period. Best_ranger had a good example of female deer not having antlers. It's the same with human females - they just can't fight, or are hopeless if they do.
Also, I don't know about that ranger competition, but in the British military, out of the harder regiments, only one woman has ever passed paratrooper selection (albeit just). None have passed (although many have tried) the more difficult royal marine selection. Keep in mind this is just a physical test - not soldiering tests. This relates to soldiering, however, as men evolved fighting abilities and fitness as a result of the same process, this still proves my point.

royal marine

06-22-2005, 11:57 AM

what theyve said is absolutely true just get over it and women arent even aloud to attend royal marines selection because it is just soldiering at your best through and through not to mention the 3rd hardest training in world

andoman_42

06-22-2005, 12:26 PM

Ok....I´ll just get over it.

best_ranger

06-22-2005, 02:38 PM

Has any woman ever even tried that best ranger competition????

Yes, js_mac, of course I´m a man......I´m not as tightminded as you and I try to keep a broader perspective on life.....

I did some checkup yesterday and noticed that there has been at least one chivalric order for women in Aragon, then in Japan women were trained with naginatas to fight and there were other mentions of women warriors.....so it seems that at least some women know how to fight.....but I don´t really have the energy to debate this anymore as it seems that some people here have too strong personal opinions and cannot/will not look at issues from a more objective side.

no there have been no women in the best ranger competition i just know that they wouldn't be able to get through you know why? because they suck!!!!!! they wouldn't be able to qualify for it daww, HELL they wouldn't even be able to get CLOSE to qualifying for the rangers whose training is tied in with 3-2nd place in hte hardest training, hardest and most gruelling training. about 3rd-2nd place tied in with other units

Aravis

06-23-2005, 12:54 AM

no there have been no women in the best ranger competition i just know that they wouldn't be able to get through you know why? because they suck!!!!!! they wouldn't be able to qualify for it daww, HELL they wouldn't even be able to get CLOSE to qualifying for the rangers whose training is tied in with 3-2nd place in hte hardest training, hardest and most gruelling training. about 3rd-2nd place tied in with other units
I know that the strongest woman can never be stronger than the strongest man, and I understand that there are some MOSs and trainings that are not allowed for women, for instance Seals, Rangers, Royal Marines (hard to miss on this forum...) But that isn't a proof that women can't be good soldiers. There are many good women soldiers in Iraq right now, and more have been and come back after completing their mission.
So you go and be a ranger because I'm sure if you had a woman soldier close by when you were deployed, you would screw up, and if you were still alive after that screw up, you would blame it on the girl!

Aravis

06-23-2005, 03:32 AM

oh ya guys hi-5 on the discrimination debate, we won that one hands down.You didn't win anything, we just realized that there is no sence in trying to debate with morons who don't know what they are talking about but still claim to always be right.

I'm on the women's side!

best_ranger

06-25-2005, 12:18 AM

[QUOTE=Aravis]I know that the strongest woman can never be stronger than the strongest man, and I understand that there are some MOSs and trainings that are not allowed for women, for instance Seals, Rangers, Royal Marines (hard to miss on this forum...) But that isn't a proof that women can't be good soldiers. There are many good women soldiers in Iraq right now, and more have been and come back after completing their mission.
So you go and be a ranger because I'm sure if you had a woman soldier close by when you were deployed, you would screw up, and if you were still alive after that screw up, you would blame it on the girl![/QUOTE}

no it's cause most of them were raped so they had to return
and if you think that we are a bunch of morons than screw you, we are fighting on the side of tradition and good, you are fighitng on the side of selfish pride, therefore evil, and femenists arguments, i mean the sufrajets were awsome i mean it was bad when women couldn't vote and it was good that they made it possible for women to vote but now it's just gotten out of hand women are using that victory and taking adavngtage of it and now it's REALLY gotten too far,

royal marine

06-26-2005, 11:38 AM

yeah i remember now on the survey carried out by military inspector/experts it was 1st SAS/SBS the 2nd it was (cant rememeber i need to ask alan who took part in it) then 3rd it was royal marines tied with some american force probably rangers or some team like that
and best ranger you are right about girls taking more and more advantage in superior positions...it is getting out of hand

Aravis

06-27-2005, 02:36 AM

By best_ranger
no it's cause most of them were raped so they had to return
and if you think that we are a bunch of morons than screw you, we are fighting on the side of tradition and good, you are fighitng on the side of selfish pride, therefore evil, and femenists arguments, i mean the sufrajets were awsome i mean it was bad when women couldn't vote and it was good that they made it possible for women to vote but now it's just gotten out of hand women are using that victory and taking adavngtage of it and now it's REALLY gotten too far,

I only know one soldier, and he's a man, so I really can't say much about your first comment. I don't believe it's true, but right now I don't have any proof. If you know of an article or something stating that all women soldiers return because they are raped, please share it with the rest of us; post a link!
Well, I think some of you are morons. It's impossible to have a discussion with you (this is directed to best_ranger) because you don't listen to what others have to say, and you are sticking to your thing however wrong it is (I don't blame you, I don't think you know any better. By the way: How old are you? If I may ask.) You weren't able to give me a reason as to why it is selfish of a woman to want to serve her country; you just keep saying it. The only "reason" you give is that all women who join want to show that they are better than all men, but how you can say that without knowing most of these women, I'll never know. It's not true, and you are disrespecting all the women who are serving!
Go ahead and call me a feminist and keep saying I'm fighting for evil, it's hilarious! You don't even know me. I don't have to be a feminist not to think a womans place is in the kitchen! And evil? I don't even believe in evil. But that's another discussion, more suited for the "christianity or evolution"-thread.

Aravis

06-27-2005, 04:15 AM

I'll just repeat something I've said many times before:
The strongest woman will never be as strong as the strongest man.

By js_mac
It's got nothing to do with narrow-mindedness on my part. I would actually say it's you who's guilty of that. You see, you have no evidence, whereas I have science proving me right... in other words, it's you messed-up socialist views that prevent you from even considering that not every human being is the same
Yes you are narrow minded. You are the one who refuses to see that not every human is the same! You think all men are strong and good and fit to be soldiers and that no woman is. Okay, sorry, my mistake: you think there are two types of people: women and men, and that all men are the same and that every woman is the same.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that some women might be good soldiers, and that not all men are fit???

And these things can never be proven by science. See, scientific proof can never be proven wrong, and your statements can easily be just that. What you are using as proof are some individuals statements, their own opinions. There must be at least as many who think differently, but since you don't share their opinions you are disregarding their statements altogether.

js_mac

06-27-2005, 07:10 AM

Yes you are narrow minded. You are the one who refuses to see that not every human is the same! You think all men are strong and good and fit to be soldiers and that no woman is. Okay, sorry, my mistake: you think there are two types of people: women and men, and that all men are the same and that every woman is the same.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that some women might be good soldiers, and that not all men are fit???

And these things can never be proven by science. See, scientific proof can never be proven wrong, and your statements can easily be just that. What you are using as proof are some individuals statements, their own opinions. There must be at least as many who think differently, but since you don't share their opinions you are disregarding their statements altogether.

Yeah, it is pretty obvious that you get abnormally weak men, and you get abnormally tough women. But that's just it - they're abnormal. I have met a lot of people in my life, and I have only once or twice met men that would be described as "weak", and have never met a woman that would be described as "strong". These abnormally weak men wouldn't get into any army either. Also, I told you about one of those women getting into the british paratroopers, but, although she was up to the phsyical demands, she still wasn't up to the mental demands of war like the men who were alongwith her.
Yes, it is science - as i told you, evolutionary biologists have gone and study primitive humans, study our brains, etc, and found exactly what i said to be true. As i told you before, i don't base arguments on my opinions, then pass myself off as right.
What proof do you have? You watched Charlie's Angels and saw women are tough? You don't have any, apart from your own opinions.... you (like all other left-wingers) have a view that everyone; men and women; black and white; are equal, and it goes against your in-built way of thinking to hear that that might not be true. Of course, there's also the fact that you're a woman, and it's natural that people don't like being told they're inferior to another group of people at certain things.

Aravis

06-27-2005, 09:42 AM

By js_mac
Yeah, it is pretty obvious that you get abnormally weak men, and you get abnormally tough women. But that's just it - they're abnormal. I have met a lot of people in my life, and I have only once or twice met men that would be described as "weak", and have never met a woman that would be described as "strong".
They aren't that scarce. I'm not a weak person (I'm not saying I would be strong enough for the army yet), but I have a lot of friends who are alot stronger than me (yes, women). You know why they and I are strong? Because we've worked out our whole lifes. I'm guessing you've never met any women who work out, and that's why you are so set in your distorted views.

These abnormally weak men wouldn't get into any army either. Also, I told you about one of those women getting into the british paratroopers, but, although she was up to the phsyical demands, she still wasn't up to the mental demands of war like the men who were alongwith her.
I've stressed several times that I don't think that all MOSs should be open for women.

Yes, it is science - as i told you, evolutionary biologists have gone and study primitive humans, study our brains, etc, and found exactly what i said to be true. As i told you before, i don't base arguments on my opinions, then pass myself off as right.
Evolutionary biology isn't science. There are too many holes in all theories and nothing will ever be proven as facts. But I'm not expecting you to understand the difference between scientific fact and experts opinions.

What proof do you have? You watched Charlie's Angels and saw women are tough? You don't have any, apart from your own opinions.... you (like all other left-wingers) have a view that everyone; men and women; black and white; are equal, and it goes against your in-built way of thinking to hear that that might not be true. Of course, there's also the fact that you're a woman, and it's natural that people don't like being told they're inferior to another group of people at certain things.
Well, I'm really sorry that all women you know are wimps, but as I said; I happen to know alot of tough, strong women.

js_mac

06-27-2005, 10:21 AM

They aren't that scarce. I'm not a weak person (I'm not saying I would be strong enough for the army yet), but I have a lot of friends who are alot stronger than me (yes, women). You know why they and I are strong? Because we've worked out our whole lifes. I'm guessing you've never met any women who work out, and that's why you are so set in your distorted views.

Arg, you're mis-reading what i'm saying - yeah, you can work out every day for your whole life but you still won't be soldier material - you've got to have the mind of a soldier which is something you are born with. Also, on the subject, men are naturally twice as physically strong, as well as tougher and fitter. You can't prove that wrong.

I've stressed several times that I don't think that all MOSs should be open for women.

And i'm stressing women shouldn't be in any profession in the military that involves combat. I've told umpteen times that the the army (our one definitely) studied this and came to the conclusion that would be dangerous for the unit to put women in combat, and would reduce the operational efficiency of the armed forces.

Evolutionary biology isn't science. There are too many holes in all theories and nothing will ever be proven as facts. But I'm not expecting you to understand the difference between scientific fact and experts opinions.

Last time i looked it was a science... what is it then? Every single scientific theory is not 100% cetain, yes, but, think about it - you're putting your dumbass biased views against people with IQs of 160 and PhDs in this subject.... evolution is the origin of species (just not able to be proved 100% by equations etc). It is the only method that modern organism could have originated (many other methods have been studied). Evolution is witnessed today in bacteria mutating to gain genes for resistance to certain antibiotics, causing them to evolve... it is right I can't believe you're actually disregarding the theory of evolution just so the world fits with your idiotic views.

Well, I'm really sorry that all women you know are wimps, but as I said; I happen to know alot of tough, strong women.

You might know fit women, but not soldier material. Could you cope with bullets and shells being fired at you; your friends getting shot dead? Yeah, of course, you'll say you will, but I've seen someone die in real life, in front of me, and it's different to what you see in films, and not many people can cope with it........ that is, according to science, one of the main areas where women are lacking - they can't cope with the horrors of war... i've told you so many times that you haven't evolved the ability to cope with war, due to the fact that men have evolved less emotions than women due to a lack of human contact while out hunting, and having to kill other men and animals in war etc. (pretty obvious if you look how much women struggle with their emotions compared to men - crying). If some men can't cope with war, how do you expect women would put up?

royal marine

06-27-2005, 10:32 AM

exactly and if women come up to soldier standards then why arent women allowed to try out for elite selection courses like the SAS/SBS and the royal marines or rangers
you really think they are really sexist so they ban women from attanding the course...NO,its cos women are born from evolution to be ironing and washing up dishes kind of people,they should not be doing men's jobs

Aravis

06-27-2005, 01:03 PM

By js_mac
Arg, you're mis-reading what i'm saying - yeah, you can work out every day for your whole life but you still won't be soldier material - you've got to have the mind of a soldier which is something you are born with. Also, on the subject, men are naturally twice as physically strong, as well as tougher and fitter. You can't prove that wrong.
Well, I'm not going to argue about this anymore. Since there are women soldiers, I'm going to assume there are women who can cope with being soldiers.

Evolutionary biology isn't science. There are too many holes in all theories and nothing will ever be proven as facts. But I'm not expecting you to understand the difference between scientific fact and experts opinions.

Last time i looked it was a science... what is it then? Every single scientific theory is not 100% cetain, yes, but, think about it - you're putting your dumbass biased views against people with IQs of 160 and PhDs in this subject.... evolution is the origin of species (just not able to be proved 100% by equations etc). It is the only method that modern organism could have originated (many other methods have been studied). Evolution is witnessed today in bacteria mutating to gain genes for resistance to certain antibiotics, causing them to evolve... it is right I can't believe you're actually disregarding the theory of evolution just so the world fits with your idiotic views.
I'm not disregarding evolution, you know I believe 100% in evolution.
I know there are diffrences on what to call science, but in my opinion those subjects which have theories that can be 100% proven to be correct are sciences. And don't start an argument here on what the word means, because there is an argument about that going on between those people with IQs of 160. I mean huge arguments; there are mathematicians who claim that mathematics is the only science. So there is no need for us to argue about it.
I believe in evolutionary biology and their findings and I even have my own theories that to my knowledge have never been studied or tested. But since nothing can be proven 100%, I don't think it should be called a science.

You might know fit women, but not soldier material. Could you cope with bullets and shells being fired at you; your friends getting shot dead? Yeah, of course, you'll say you will, but I've seen someone die in real life, in front of me, and it's different to what you see in films, and not many people can cope with it........
I would never say that I could cope with it; I haven't had to so I don't know. And no, I'm not stupid enough to believe anything is in real life as it is on TV. But I do know that there are women soldiers who have coped just fine, and that should be proof enough. And are you saying that because there are men who can't cope no women can cope? You shouldn't make those kinds of generalizations. When it comes to coping with traumas caused by disasters women are usually those who cope the best. I don't have any proof of that right now, but I know I've read it somewhere and I'll try to find an article from somewhere to post here.
I'm really sorry that you've had to see someone die, I'm sure that would be hard for anyone.

that is, according to science, one of the main areas where women are lacking - they can't cope with the horrors of war... i've told you so many times that you haven't evolved the ability to cope with war, due to the fact that men have evolved less emotions than women due to a lack of human contact while out hunting, and having to kill other men and animals in war etc. (pretty obvious if you look how much women struggle with their emotions compared to men - crying). If some men can't cope with