Good. There's your equality you cunts, I hope you enjoy it.
eh...Let's see combat arms fully open to females first. I've never studied draftee placement in depth, but isn't that where most of them end up historically?
Quote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on October 13, 2015, 01:08:54 PMeh...Let's see combat arms fully open to females first. I've never studied draftee placement in depth, but isn't that where most of them end up historically?Those 2 women passed Ranger School. Supposedly at the same standard as the men.
Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 13, 2015, 01:11:04 PMQuote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on October 13, 2015, 01:08:54 PMeh...Let's see combat arms fully open to females first. I've never studied draftee placement in depth, but isn't that where most of them end up historically?Those 2 women passed Ranger School. Supposedly at the same standard as the men.I know. That's 2 out of 49 though, compared to the school's roughly 50% pass rate.
Quote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on October 13, 2015, 01:12:56 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 13, 2015, 01:11:04 PMQuote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on October 13, 2015, 01:08:54 PMeh...Let's see combat arms fully open to females first. I've never studied draftee placement in depth, but isn't that where most of them end up historically?Those 2 women passed Ranger School. Supposedly at the same standard as the men.I know. That's 2 out of 49 though, compared to the school's roughly 50% pass rate.True, but somebody had to be first
Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 13, 2015, 01:16:46 PMQuote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on October 13, 2015, 01:12:56 PMQuote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 13, 2015, 01:11:04 PMQuote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on October 13, 2015, 01:08:54 PMeh...Let's see combat arms fully open to females first. I've never studied draftee placement in depth, but isn't that where most of them end up historically?Those 2 women passed Ranger School. Supposedly at the same standard as the men.I know. That's 2 out of 49 though, compared to the school's roughly 50% pass rate.True, but somebody had to be firstAlso trueBut my point was more so that (to the most of my knowledge) there isn't a full female integration of the 11,18,19,and 12 series yet. Shouldn't that come first?
>forcing women to get raped
Quote from: Gravedigger on October 13, 2015, 02:59:49 PM>forcing women to get rapedAre you a spambot or something? Your post literally makes no sense or even applies.
Quote from: MyNameIsCharlie on October 13, 2015, 03:01:16 PMQuote from: Gravedigger on October 13, 2015, 02:59:49 PM>forcing women to get rapedAre you a spambot or something? Your post literally makes no sense or even applies.If women got selected for service, they'd be forced to go to a place where sexual assault rates are something like 1 in 3.
I'm genuinely surprised at the people in this thread--who oppose the draft--effectively celebrating a doubling said draft on the basis that it's "gender equality" and the "next best option". What the fuck kind of logic is that? Progressivism has become a parody of itself.
Quote from: Meta as Fuck on October 13, 2015, 03:26:28 PMI'm genuinely surprised at the people in this thread--who oppose the draft--effectively celebrating a doubling said draft on the basis that it's "gender equality" and the "next best option". What the fuck kind of logic is that? Progressivism has become a parody of itself.You're not doubling the number of needed draftees, you are dividing the burden of the needed amount across the populace in a way that doesn't discriminate based on genitalia.
Are we going to ignore biological imperatives and the inability of men to serve cohesively with women on the battlefield?
Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:38:43 PMQuote from: SoporificSlash on October 13, 2015, 03:36:26 PMAre we going to ignore biological imperatives and the inability of men to serve cohesively with women on the battlefield?Military service =/= combat positions. Women should still enter the draft for emergency infrastructure labor and other logistical needs.I wasn't sure if anyone was arguing for them to be in combat roles or not that's why I thew that out there. I don't have a problem with non combat roles being filled by women.
Quote from: SoporificSlash on October 13, 2015, 03:36:26 PMAre we going to ignore biological imperatives and the inability of men to serve cohesively with women on the battlefield?Military service =/= combat positions. Women should still enter the draft for emergency infrastructure labor and other logistical needs.
Just because you can say that it's instinctual for men to defend women
Quote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:43:53 PMJust because you can say that it's instinctual for men to defend women...isn't that a good thing? You should care about the safety and well-being of the members of your crew, shouldn't you?
Quote from: Mad Max on October 13, 2015, 03:46:15 PMQuote from: eggsalad on October 13, 2015, 03:43:53 PMJust because you can say that it's instinctual for men to defend women...isn't that a good thing? You should care about the safety and well-being of the members of your crew, shouldn't you?Generally it's better to have people thinking rationally about a mission rather than their immediate squad, as far as military doctrine goes.