I'll never tell

It's just too bad

And secret

Quote from: Cindo on June 29, 2015, 02:10:42 AM

Not gonna say it online, much less on this board, fam.

As an aside, this site is dead as dicks.

It's like 2 in the morning.

And?

You underestimate how much I lurk. This site is dead as dicks at all hours.

>That flag stands for more than racism

Yeah, it stands for the wartime era of a state which was fighting for the right to own slaves.

And was then brought into the public spotlight in the 1940's when used by the KKK

So yeah, it's pretty much "Fuck Niggers; The Flag"

Violence is bad regardless of gender

Self defense is necessarily regardless of gender, as well

Talk shit, get hit, is all I'm saying.

>Thinking that accepting that gender dysphoria is an something that is "wrong" and thinking that we need to support those with it are mutually exclusive.

Lots of mental diseases show that something is "wrong" with the person. You don't hate 'em for it just because you think they need treatment.

HRT, snip their dick off, and then everyone's happy. Huzzah.

Your tits are gonna be sore as fuck

Gender =/= Race

And? The argument was that the military shouldn't be forced to accommodate those different than the "norm" (men in the original argument) because it could put "unit cohesion" in detriment.

How is this any different when applied to race, sexuality, or religion?

Quote from: Saerveyn on May 31, 2015, 01:03:08 PM

If someone isn't getting along with them because they're a woman, that's the fault of the opposing person.

You're willing to sacrifice military efficiency because some soldiers could be bigoted? Come on, that really is tumblr-tier; the military shouldn't be forced to accommodate certain things because those certain things are "fair".

Guess we can't have blacks in the military. Some soldiers could be racist!

Quote from: Saerveyn on May 31, 2015, 12:45:54 PM

Men and women should be held to the same standards

Would you waive that point of view if the presence of women, even competent women, was still detrimental to military operations overall, for whatever reason?

How would it be detrimental? There'd be no reason to have women just for the sake of them being women.

Which is why the women with their smaller and weaker frame have boobs to feed babies with.

Yes, that's not being disputed.

Which women aren't good at. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Lol sure thing buckaroo.

I'm not talking about deranged parents killing their child, though, you dip. I'm talking about the maternal instinct that kicks in when a woman sees a child in trouble. Something men don't have. We have sympathy, but it'd be easier for a man to hesitate than for a woman to hesitate.

Newborns usually look like their fathers to trigger instincts for the father to stay and take care of their children. Where are you getting the idea that males don't have the instincts to look after their children or children in general?

I don't know about men being driven more by logic, but women are driven by emotion far, far more than men are. Fact.

Oh shit I wasn't aware of this startling development. Please link your source that isn't from Return of Kings or a similar website.

Not at all. I didn't even imply that. This has nothing to do with parenting. I'm talking about women being mentally and physically weaker, which they've proven to be.

The first point is literally just sexism, pure and simple. The second point is on-average, which luckily doesn't apply to people who train for the military. I'd hardly expect a sorority girl to be the common applicant for an infantrywoman.

No. I don't even exercise and I'm easily 3 times stronger than the average woman. Same goes for every other man in decent shape. Why do you think women get raped so much? Because they enjoy it? Are you implying that if we're not at Olympic levels that were nearly physocally equal? Then why can't women wrestle off a man raping them?

And do you think you'd be able to wrestle to the ground and rape Ronda Rousey, or someone similar? Once again, you're assuming that every woman in the military is gonna be Sally from accounting. If they're joining the military, they should certainly be in the same physical shape as a man joining the military. The fact that standards are lower for women is bullshit and shouldn't be instated in any degree. Women should have to pass the same physical tests as men.

Ubfortuantely for women, they wouldn't be able to carry an unconscious male teammate out of an area with all his gear on. It's not physically possible.

See above

Women can kill. I've never disputed that.

They're just far worse at it and not as aggressive and ruthless as men are on the average.

See above

lol mad

Eh

And they're a rarity. Men that can kill are not a rarity.

Lmao

It isn't. Physical strength and mental strength factor in, too. Women tend to fail at both in a much higher percentage when compared to men. Spare me the SJW crap.

Lmao

It's not peak performance. It's that average men are far more capable than average women.

See that one part that I said "see above" to a bunch.

Quote from: Saerveyn on May 31, 2015, 12:01:08 PM

and the fact that men have a higher "peak" for physical effectiveness has no bearing on whether or not women can be just as effective from a military standpoint.

It kinda does. Physicality is absolutely paramount for militaristic operations, from lugging heavy equipment that could potentially save you or your friend's life, to hiking astronomical distances over long periods of time. If an individual woman can prove herself worthy of attaining such feats then I see no problem of acceptance with the infantry, but chances are on aggregate, a disproportionate amount of women just aren't gonna make the cut due to their biological makeup. Unfortunate fact, but still ultimately true.

Spare us the tumblrina rhetoric. This is the serious forum.

>Arguing against blatant sexism
>Tumblrina rhetoric

Ah, there it is. I was waiting for something akin to "SJW" to pop up.

But no, luckily the fact that men are stronger than women on-average and that men have higher 'peaks' than women in terms of strength doesn't really affect anything from a militaristic standpoint. I highly doubt that most infantrymen are Arnold Schwarzenegger or Usain Bolt.

Hot damn this may be the stupidest shit I've ever read in my entire life.

Women were typically the caretakers because, in the past, the necessary tools to care for an infant child were not at hand. Breastfeeding one's child and taking care of them by hand was all but absolutely required, and so the men would hunt in order to gather food. This was mostly necessary because BEFORE THE DAWN OF CIVILIZATION there was no way to sustain food. In societies such as African and North Asian nomadic and tribal styles of life, egalitarian and matriarchal attitudes were much more common. Tribes such as the Xiongnu and Mongols typically gave women fairly equal treatment within their societies because each gender was seen as being fairly equal.

Yes, men did usually keep more official positions (and women were given names such as 'Sorqaqtani' or 'Oghul-qaimish' which showed that men were typically much more desirable), though this was based entirely on the fact that, during this time, pure physical strength and brawniness was a key factor in how good you were, and meritocracy-based militaristic societies such as the mongolians put a very heavy focus on how good you were at killing things.

Saying that it's less easy for a woman to kill someone is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. 'Maternal instinct' is just as common for someone to say as 'parental instinct'. Do you really think it's any more likely for a father to kill their son than for a mother to kill their son? Because I could link you just as many articles citing the second one as I could citing the first. It's insulting to women because you're spouting "redpill" bullshit about women being driven by emotions whilst men are driven by logic, and it's insulting to men because it's insinuating that anyone borne male would have a more difficult time connecting with their child or being a caretaker for the household.

Men are, on average and at high, near-olympic-levels, more athletic than women, yes. That can't be disputed as it's simple fact. Luckily, military life doesn't need olympic sprinters or pole-vaulters, so I don't think those statistics have any weight on whether or not a woman can be in the military. Saying that a woman is less-likely to kill or more likely to act on empathy or emotions is just blatant sexism that isn't supported by any facts save for douchey men that either don't know any women or only do so biblically.

TL;DR: You're a sexist piece of shit that basically knows nothing about how people in general work. Plenty of females throughout history have proved just as effective as men at killing, the military shouldn't be based on your ability to kill, and the fact that men have a higher "peak" for physical effectiveness has no bearing on whether or not women can be just as effective from a military standpoint. Lionesses are the typical hunters in lion prides, but I'd trust a lion with a mane to kill me just as easily.

Quote from: Incan on May 28, 2015, 01:57:45 PM

Believing in a deity.

would you consider buddhism a religion

buddha isn't really a deity

Buddhism isn't a religion

The common "religion" is either Hindu-Buddhism or Shinto-Buddhism

Second one, easily