This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - πΊπππππ
πͺππππ
Pages: 1 ... 351352353 354355 ... 1001
10561
« on: June 11, 2016, 07:36:32 PM »
If that was the only reason, yea, that's fucked up.
That is the only reason. Literally the whole reason it's so evil.
How do you know for sure?
Because it's a fact. Women aren't allowed to serve in the military in a combat role. The reason being their gender.
10562
« on: June 11, 2016, 07:35:18 PM »
Pablo Escobar would be a better president than Trump
this whole "Hillary is a criminal" meme is irrelevant
Could you be any more of a terrible person?
I'm seriously appalled.
I'm not the one who literally thinks we should cherish discrimination.
10563
« on: June 11, 2016, 07:33:41 PM »
If that was the only reason, yea, that's fucked up.
That is the only reason. Literally the whole reason it's so evil.
10564
« on: June 11, 2016, 07:30:23 PM »
You literally just told somebody in the armed forces you don't care if they die as long as women can serve alongside men.
Don't do drugs, kids.
Ooooh, scary stuff. I don't care. Doing the right thing is more important than a life. I'd let someone kill me if it meant this era of discrimination could end and women were allowed to serve in the military.
10565
« on: June 11, 2016, 07:25:05 PM »
Pablo Escobar would be a better president than Trump
this whole "Hillary is a criminal" meme is irrelevant
10566
« on: June 11, 2016, 07:22:15 PM »
Women aren't even allowed to take the fucking physical requirements test, genius. That's the problem. And if you're so sure that none will pass, this should be a non-issue for you. I love how uninformed you are. It's giving me a huge rapist fucking boner TESTOSTERONE FUCK YEAH MAN
And if you let BIOLOGICAL URGES drive your fucking life, then you're a retard. If you think the biological urge to protect women is something that should be cherished instead of disdaned, then you're a sexist. That's what I'm talking about. And back on topic, if you let biological urges drive your critical thinking as a soldier, you're a terrible soldier. It should be cherished, just like traditional family values.
There is NO excuse for discrimination that doesn't at least have a seperate but equal clause. If you're advocating the ability for one sex to do something that the other is disbarred from doing, there are no justifications that can make you a non-shitty person.
Because they can't do it. And even if some can, it's fuck up unit cohesion. End of story.
"Sexism should be cherished lmao" Literally kill yourself. Women aren't even allowed to take the fucking physical requirements test, genius. That's the problem. And if you're so sure that none will pass, this should be a non-issue for you.
We all take the same APFT and raw scores are all the same, no matter if you're a man, woman, 18, or 40.
And if a woman gets the same scores on the APFT, then she's just as able to serve as a man is.
Nah. I know a chick who can push the same as me but can't haul my ass in full kit with a RAT strap.
http://sep7agon.net/serious/looks-like-psu-was-right/
Men and women are different. Deal with it.
If letting women enter the military magically made it 1/1000 as effective, it would still be the right thing to do. The fact a girl can't carry you is an acceptable loss to preventing this miscarriage of morality.
10567
« on: June 11, 2016, 07:19:49 PM »
generalizing an entire gender as unfit to be soldiers is far from moral. It's irrelevant.
Your moral code is the worst on this site, easily. This is one of the largest American travesties in modern history.
Coming from the anarchist junky
Not an anarchist, and there's nothing morally wrong with doing drugs. Try again.
HAHAHA
If a 12 year old wants to be a prostitute and had consensual sex with 40 year old men in exchange for heroin, would you consider that moral?
No, because the 12 year old is beneath the age of consent.
If you change the age to 18, there's absolutely nothing immoral with that.
You're a joke.
Morality revolves around consent.
Way to ignore my far more important post, though, the one where I proved your sexist way of thinking should make you ashamed.
I'm in the middle of writing my reply.
You realize I have a life and I'm doing things in between talking to you right? Not all of us are junkies who sit around all day injecting themselves with poison.
Most people don't reply to a later comment before they reply to an earlier one. Just common sense. I'd doubt the majority of women would be competent enough to serve. Also, why can't questioning Unit Cohesion be a valid question? Don't men communicate differently? Also, I'd imagine feeling the need to protect a female/anyone from someone/something is somewhat innate. Considering, men had to do so for thousands of years, not 'cuz of sexism, but because women are the weaker sex.
Yeah, and the majority of men aren't competent enough to serve. I'm talking about the minority of women who pass the physical test. Just because humans are shitty and have shitty biological urges doesn't mean we have to embrace that shittiness and use it to justify sexism and discrimination. You're uncomfortable there's a woman in your unit? Fucking deal with it. The woman who spends her whole life training to be a soldier, aces all the test, and then finds out she can't do shit because she doesn't have a dick is far more than uncomfortable. Such petty bullshit. And these are the men who are supposed to be fearless protectors.
10568
« on: June 11, 2016, 07:15:44 PM »
Women aren't even allowed to take the fucking physical requirements test, genius. That's the problem. And if you're so sure that none will pass, this should be a non-issue for you.
We all take the same APFT and raw scores are all the same, no matter if you're a man, woman, 18, or 40.
And if a woman gets the same scores on the APFT, then she's just as able to serve as a man is.
10569
« on: June 11, 2016, 07:13:45 PM »
generalizing an entire gender as unfit to be soldiers is far from moral. It's irrelevant.
Your moral code is the worst on this site, easily. This is one of the largest American travesties in modern history.
Coming from the anarchist junky
Not an anarchist, and there's nothing morally wrong with doing drugs. Try again.
HAHAHA
If a 12 year old wants to be a prostitute and had consensual sex with 40 year old men in exchange for heroin, would you consider that moral?
No, because the 12 year old is beneath the age of consent.
If you change the age to 18, there's absolutely nothing immoral with that.
13 should really be the AoC though.
I disagree there.
10570
« on: June 11, 2016, 07:12:30 PM »
generalizing an entire gender as unfit to be soldiers is far from moral. It's irrelevant.
Your moral code is the worst on this site, easily. This is one of the largest American travesties in modern history.
Coming from the anarchist junky
Not an anarchist, and there's nothing morally wrong with doing drugs. Try again.
HAHAHA
If a 12 year old wants to be a prostitute and had consensual sex with 40 year old men in exchange for heroin, would you consider that moral?
No, because the 12 year old is beneath the age of consent.
If you change the age to 18, there's absolutely nothing immoral with that.
You're a joke.
Morality revolves around consent. Way to ignore my far more important post, though, the one where I proved your sexist way of thinking should make you ashamed.
10571
« on: June 11, 2016, 07:09:54 PM »
generalizing an entire gender as unfit to be soldiers is far from moral. It's irrelevant.
Your moral code is the worst on this site, easily. This is one of the largest American travesties in modern history.
Coming from the anarchist junky
Not an anarchist, and there's nothing morally wrong with doing drugs. Try again.
HAHAHA
If a 12 year old wants to be a prostitute and had consensual sex with 40 year old men in exchange for heroin, would you consider that moral?
No, because the 12 year old is beneath the age of consent. If you change the age to 18, there's absolutely nothing immoral with that.
10572
« on: June 11, 2016, 07:09:11 PM »
Women aren't even allowed to take the fucking physical requirements test, genius. That's the problem. And if you're so sure that none will pass, this should be a non-issue for you.
And if you let BIOLOGICAL URGES drive your fucking life, then you're a retard. If you think the biological urge to protect women is something that should be cherished instead of disdaned, then you're a sexist. That's what I'm talking about. And back on topic, if you let biological urges drive your critical thinking as a soldier, you're a terrible soldier.
There is NO excuse for discrimination that doesn't at least have a seperate but equal clause. If you're advocating the ability for one sex to do something that the other is disbarred from doing, there are no justifications that can make you a non-shitty person.
10573
« on: June 11, 2016, 06:56:24 PM »
generalizing an entire gender as unfit to be soldiers is far from moral. It's irrelevant.
Your moral code is the worst on this site, easily. This is one of the largest American travesties in modern history.
Coming from the anarchist junky
Not an anarchist, and there's nothing morally wrong with doing drugs. Try again.
10574
« on: June 11, 2016, 06:55:50 PM »
Yes, they can. Not every man can be a soldier, and not every woman can be a soldier. But some women can pass every single physical requirement that's required of a man, are literally just as competent, and yet they're still passed down. How can that woman not handle it physically, when she objectively fucking can? Because they can't. Maybe one or two can. That doesn't make it s good idea to have women in combat.
Unit cohesion can be maintained if we enlist soldiers who aren't sexists. Has nothing to do with sexism.
Yeah, and I've explained to you about four times ITT how it can be a perfectly fine fighting force while still allowing women to serve and eradicating organized discrimination from our government.
It has nothing to do with discrimination.
"One or two" is a gross under exaggeration, but even if it was true, it would be an abomination to not allow those one or two to serve. Seeing women as needing protection, and men as not needing protection, is sexist. Thinking that as a male, you have to save women because they need saving, is sexist. And I never thought I'd have to explain this to someone, but saying someone isn't allowed to do something on the basis of their gender alone is discrimination.
10575
« on: June 11, 2016, 06:52:19 PM »
generalizing an entire gender as unfit to be soldiers is far from moral. It's irrelevant.
Your moral code is the worst on this site, easily. This is one of the largest American travesties in modern history.
10576
« on: June 11, 2016, 06:50:15 PM »
Because they can't handle it physically, and it fucks with unit cohesion.
Yes, they can. Not every man can be a soldier, and not every woman can be a soldier. But some women can pass every single physical requirement that's required of a man, are literally just as competent, and yet they're still passed down. How can that woman not handle it physically, when she objectively fucking can? Unit cohesion can be maintained if we enlist soldiers who aren't sexists. The military is not here to be part of the bullshit politically correct social justice movement of today. It's a fighting force to protect the country.
Yeah, and I've explained to you about four times ITT how it can be a perfectly fine fighting force while still allowing women to serve and eradicating organized discrimination from our government.
10577
« on: June 11, 2016, 06:46:06 PM »
And because you're obviously not going to try to continue your previous bullshit, to summarize, being a good person =/= being a good soldier. To summarize, your opinions are still trash.
Wars are inherently immoral, No they aren't.
you're killing people for petty geopolitical reasons. No you're killing them for very serious reasons, although the recent wars have been bullshit.
As a soldier trained in mere combat and killing, "Mere combat and killing"
Mere: Used to specify how small or insignificant something or someone is
Wanna rephrase that champ? Or are you seriously so ignorant as to think soldiers can't think about anything?
your only job is to follow the commands of people who are trained in strategy and loss reduction. And to do what's morally right when the situation presents itself.
As a politician, your job is to do what's morally right. LOL
And preventing an entire demographic of people from doing something just because they were born the "wrong" gender is one of the worst crimes America continues to commit in this era.
Women just aren't fit for combat. Tough.
Stop cutting quotes, it's annoying as hell. And yeah, wars in general are immoral. One or both sides has to have a diplomatic fuck up for a war to start. Killing someone and taking a life is "mere" when compared to the strategy and deep thinking that generals and commanders do. A politician's job IS to enact moral laws, you can't fucking argue against that. And no, generalizing an entire gender as unfit to be soldiers is far from a moral law. I cannot fucking wait until people like you die out. Your way of thinking is cancerous.
10578
« on: June 11, 2016, 06:43:14 PM »
Yeah I'd rather have a real military than one full of pink haired SJW's in the name of equality.
Your bullshit will never happen. Tough luck.
This mindset is really dumb. Do you think the type of woman who's going to meet the physical requirements, get through basic training, and be competent enough to be put into active combat is going to be the same type of woman who has pink hair and browses tumblr?
You're just pulling justifications for discrimination out of your ass now.
Apparently that's what you'd be happy with, beta faggots and and SJW whores all in the name of equality.
Jesus, what's your damage? The military's entire composition wouldn't change if we let women serve and didn't enlist men who had a problem with that. Believe or not, not everyone is stuck in the past with their terrible social opinions like you, and some of even the most battle hardened and skillful men see women as their equals. You can keep throwing this biology word around, but it has no bearing. It's the same excuse people in the early 20th century used to try to prevent women from having careers. You have this doomsday shit in your head that thinks our whole national defense is going to fall apart if we let competent women fight for their country, and it's so childish.
10579
« on: June 11, 2016, 06:18:12 PM »
And because you're obviously not going to try to continue your previous bullshit, to summarize, being a good person =/= being a good soldier.
Wars are inherently immoral, you're killing people for petty geopolitical reasons. As a soldier trained in mere combat and killing, your only job is to follow the commands of people who are trained in strategy and loss reduction. As a politician, your job is to do what's morally right. And preventing an entire demographic of people from doing something just because they were born the "wrong" gender is one of the worst crimes America continues to commit in this era.
10580
« on: June 11, 2016, 06:16:58 PM »
Yeah I'd rather have a real military than one full of pink haired SJW's in the name of equality.
Your bullshit will never happen. Tough luck.
This mindset is really dumb. Do you think the type of woman who's going to meet the physical requirements, get through basic training, and be competent enough to be put into active combat is going to be the same type of woman who has pink hair and browses tumblr? You're just pulling justifications for discrimination out of your ass now.
10581
« on: June 11, 2016, 06:08:55 PM »
>morale isn't important as morality
>lel just stop being a bigot just cause they don't have a dick, it's not like there's any biological urge to protect a woman as a man all I had to do is change one thing, otherwise this is spot on Your duty as a soldier is to follow orders, that's all. Morality has nothing to do with war. If you're the type of soldier who's the most effective (because maximum military effectiveness is far more important than morality, right?), then you always listen to your superior.
You're a very intelligent and compassionate person, Second. π
It was a play on this: Equality is far more important than having the most effective military we can possibly have.
This IS satirical right?
The idea that morality is better than an effective military is like another language to you people.
10582
« on: June 11, 2016, 05:54:22 PM »
>never put an individual over the mission
Except that happens all the time. People, not robots. People disobey direct orders all the time and risk their own lives to save a friend, sometimes just to get his dead body for his parents back home. That's multiplied by a hundred if it's a woman. These acts are some of the best displays of heroism.
Yeah, and that's the fucking problem.
First of all, disobeying your superior and putting the whole mission at risk is not heroism, it's idiocy. Second of all, the fact that it's worse if a woman is in danger only proves my point more. Right now, if what you're saying is true, our "best" soldiers are a bunch of irresponsible, sexist assholes. I wonder what you'd think of a skilled soldier who always thinks of the mission and wouldn't put a male or female life ahead of doing what the CO ordered. Let me guess, he would be some kind of pussy.
Get your head out of your ass, and stop prancing around saying you know what makes up a great soldier, when you obviously have no clue.
Final line of the warrior ethos and eighth line of the Soldier's Creed.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade"
Furthermore, if someone is in danger or injured, your immediate duties become guarding that individual and performing immediate first aid (which under fire is usually just a tourniquet and then you take up firing again) until your actual medic gets there and drags him off while prepping the 9line for medevac or casevac.
There's something that ragheads teach the young hadjis that goes along the lines of "Shoot to wound Americans. You will take two out of the fight."
And yet Challenger's whole argument was that with women, this is a bad thing
You can't have it both ways.
And regardless of what you just posted, if your captain says to fall back and let a squadmate die, you do it.
LOL
I'm talking about unit cohesion, genius. And if a team member dies and there was nothing that could be done, the deceased being a female fucks with the unit cohesion far more.
Who gives a shit? Stopping institutionalized discrimination is far more important than morale of soldiers. Once fucking again, if you're going to let the fact that one of your squadmates doesn't have a dick impact your performance as a soldier, then you're a shitty soldier. No it isn't. Apart from it being the morally right thing to do, it's your duty.
If he's not on the ground with you then no, they don't always know best.
Your duty as a soldier is to follow orders, that's all. Morality has nothing to do with war. If you're the type of soldier who's the most effective (because maximum military effectiveness is far more important than morality, right?), then you always listen to your superior.
10583
« on: June 11, 2016, 05:43:53 PM »
Where do you come up with this genius shit? Years of combat experience? How did you have time for that while still being a full time junky? Amazing.
I take it you've served plenty of tours in the military, then, facing combat and all that.
lol and I love how Challenger tries to call me out for some arbitrary reason and then just completely ignores it when I use the same one
10584
« on: June 11, 2016, 05:34:17 PM »
To let others know what your opinions are, and defend those opinions when they're inevitably challenged.
10585
« on: June 11, 2016, 05:29:23 PM »
>never put an individual over the mission
Except that happens all the time. People, not robots. People disobey direct orders all the time and risk their own lives to save a friend, sometimes just to get his dead body for his parents back home. That's multiplied by a hundred if it's a woman. These acts are some of the best displays of heroism.
Yeah, and that's the fucking problem.
First of all, disobeying your superior and putting the whole mission at risk is not heroism, it's idiocy. Second of all, the fact that it's worse if a woman is in danger only proves my point more. Right now, if what you're saying is true, our "best" soldiers are a bunch of irresponsible, sexist assholes. I wonder what you'd think of a skilled soldier who always thinks of the mission and wouldn't put a male or female life ahead of doing what the CO ordered. Let me guess, he would be some kind of pussy.
Get your head out of your ass, and stop prancing around saying you know what makes up a great soldier, when you obviously have no clue.
Final line of the warrior ethos and eighth line of the Soldier's Creed.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade"
Furthermore, if someone is in danger or injured, your immediate duties become guarding that individual and performing immediate first aid (which under fire is usually just a tourniquet and then you take up firing again) until your actual medic gets there and drags him off while prepping the 9line for medevac or casevac.
There's something that ragheads teach the young hadjis that goes along the lines of "Shoot to wound Americans. You will take two out of the fight."
And yet Challenger's whole argument was that with women, this is a bad thing You can't have it both ways. And regardless of what you just posted, if your captain says to fall back and let a squadmate die, you do it.
10586
« on: June 11, 2016, 05:27:53 PM »
Except being a good person makes you a good soldier.
LOL
To be a good soldier, you have to have dexterity, endurance, skill, and obedience. If you're an expert sharpshooter who can listen to your CO, you're a far better soldier than someone who's going to put the whole point of the mission in jeopardy to save a friend. Morality has nothing to do with being a good soldier, and being a good person doesn't make you one, either.
Wow, you're legitimately fucking retarded.
Where do you come up with this genius shit? Years of combat experience? How did you have time for that while still being a full time junky? Amazing.
I take it you've served plenty of tours in the military, then, facing combat and all that. You don't have to experience something firsthand to have knowledge on it and understand how it works. If a squadmate is in a position where you have to compromise the rest of the squad or the goal of the mission to save them, then you don't save them. It's shitty, but that's how war works. And plenty of good soldiers follow that rule, that they drill into your head in training, to a T. If women were allowed to serve in combat, those good soldiers would change nothing about their paradigm.
Of course it's shitty and sometimes there's no chance of saving them.
But to say that even trying to save a member of your team is retarded is downright disgusting. There are some orders that simply don't deserve to be followed.
I never said saving a member of your team is retarded, I said putting the mission at risk to do so is idiotic. Which is completely true. And yeah, if you're a good soldier, every order deserves to be followed. Your CO is god, that's the whole point of boot camp.
10587
« on: June 11, 2016, 05:13:31 PM »
what was that really cringy one from a few years back, where they kept making forced jokes and shit and it was incredibly awkward for everyone?
I'd only go to one if it were like that
10588
« on: June 11, 2016, 05:00:31 PM »
um, i was banned immediately for insulting challenger the last time
Well it's late and I'm exhausted, sick, on mobile and really not in the mood to discuss this with other mods or go through ban / warning histories. If another mod feels one of them deserves a ban, sure, but I'm gonna get some rest. But if I sign on tomorrow and see this continued, I'm not even going to try and be nice to anyone involved.
Um, what? I haven't personally insulted him once here, I'm trying to have a conversation. He's the one freaking out on me. In what world would I deserve a ban?
10589
« on: June 11, 2016, 04:49:06 PM »
Except being a good person makes you a good soldier.
LOL
To be a good soldier, you have to have dexterity, endurance, skill, and obedience. If you're an expert sharpshooter who can listen to your CO, you're a far better soldier than someone who's going to put the whole point of the mission in jeopardy to save a friend. Morality has nothing to do with being a good soldier, and being a good person doesn't make you one, either.
Wow, you're legitimately fucking retarded.
Where do you come up with this genius shit? Years of combat experience? How did you have time for that while still being a full time junky? Amazing.
I take it you've served plenty of tours in the military, then, facing combat and all that. You don't have to experience something firsthand to have knowledge on it and understand how it works. If a squadmate is in a position where you have to compromise the rest of the squad or the goal of the mission to save them, then you don't save them. It's shitty, but that's how war works. And plenty of good soldiers follow that rule, that they drill into your head in training, to a T. If women were allowed to serve in combat, those good soldiers would change nothing about their paradigm.
10590
« on: June 11, 2016, 04:42:47 PM »
Except being a good person makes you a good soldier.
LOL To be a good soldier, you have to have dexterity, endurance, skill, and obedience. If you're an expert sharpshooter who can listen to your CO, you're a far better soldier than someone who's going to put the whole point of the mission in jeopardy to save a friend. Morality has nothing to do with being a good soldier, and being a good person doesn't make you one, either.
Pages: 1 ... 351352353 354355 ... 1001
|
Show Posts