Guest viewing is limited

Donald Trump running for president

I think it's a combination of physicality and mental fortitude. Not all men have both.

And as a liberal, I would be against lowering the bar.
 
thebigt said:
muscleupcrohn said:
but you seem to be supporting political correctness!!!

there really truly is a difference between men and women...men were blessed with more physical abilities, but women were blessed with the greatest gift of all-the ability to give birth!!!
Click to expand...
You seem fundamentally unable to understand what I am saying. I am saying that if SOMEHOW a woman came in and destroyed most male soldiers in the physical tests, you can't say that she's unfit to be an elite soldier based on physical attributes. That's cut and dry, binary, yes or no facts. If you are trying to say that women shouldn't be able to serve on these elite units at all, regardless of how physically capable thy are, then you're not actually saying that it's the physical requirements keeping them from being elite soldiers, it's an inherent objection to women serving that you're using physical requirements to defend.

Again, can any of these soldiers actually compete in any Olympic event? They're in tremendous overall shape, with insane mental training and strength, but are any of them the fastest or strongest in the world to begin with? It's rather irrelevant.
Click to expand...
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Are these elite combat units actually the best in the world at any given physics attribute or test though? There's much more to being an elite soldier than just being a freak athlete in great shape. LeBron is a genetic freak of a man, but he's not an elite soldier.
Click to expand...

lol...Michael Jordan could be though...even spud web. the point being that even among men most don't have the warrior heart to be an elite commando, this is the point I have been making, lol.
 
thebigt said:
lol...Michael Jordan could be though...even spud web. the point being that even among men most don't have the warrior heart to be an elite commando, this is the point I have been making, lol.
Click to expand...
Then why not just say that it's the fundamental character/mindset you believe women have that prevents them from being elite soldiers, not purely physical attributes. This attitude and justification also saves you from having to continue to retroactively raise the physical standards to account for a 1 in 1000000 female outlier and therefore kick out many males.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
thebigt said:
You seem fundamentally unable to understand what I am saying. I am saying that if SOMEHOW a woman came in and destroyed most male soldiers in the physical tests, you can't say that she's unfit to be an elite soldier based on physical attributes. That's cut and dry, binary, yes or no facts. If you are trying to say that women shouldn't be able to serve on these elite units at all, regardless of how physically capable thy are, then you're not actually saying that it's the physical requirements keeping them from being elite soldiers, it's an inherent objection to women serving that you're using physical requirements to defend.

Again, can any of these soldiers actually compete in any Olympic event? They're in tremendous overall shape, with insane mental training and strength, but are any of them the fastest or strongest in the world to begin with? It's rather irrelevant.
Click to expand...

if...if....if....if....if....if...............I think your if's are irrelevant!!!

face the facts, men are physically superior to women-and that's a fact!!!!!
Click to expand...
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Then why not just say that it's the fundamental character/mindset you believe women have that prevents them from being elite soldiers, not purely physical attributes. This attitude and justification also saves you from having to continue to retroactively raise the physical standards to account for a 1 in 1000000 female outlier and therefore kick out many males.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you claim to be...fess up, you are a liberal democrat!!!

don't be a hillary- OWN IT!!!
 
thebigt said:
muscleupcrohn said:
if...if....if....if....if....if...............I think your if's are irrelevant!!!

face the facts, men are physically superior to women-and that's a fact!!!!!
Click to expand...
At a maximum potential, absolutely, but what I am saying is that even those elite soldiers are not at the maximum human potential, so that argument is not entirely applicable. Can any of these elite soldiers come in and win an Olympic medal in any event? The 100, 200, 400, 800 meter run, swimming, weight lifting, etc? If not, the maximum human potential is irrelevant, as even the men aren't there. THAT is the true hypothetical.
Click to expand...
 
thebigt said:
I don't care what you claim to be...fess up, you are a liberal democrat!!!

don't be a hillary- OWN IT!!!
Click to expand...
Lol, I've been called a hardcore conservative more times than a liberal ITT. Ask gutterpump, haha. I disagree with you, a conservative, on one issue, therefore I'm a liberal. That's some infallible logic there.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Lol, I've been called a hardcore conservative more times than a liberal ITT. Ask gutterpump, haha. I disagree with you, a conservative, on one issue, therefore I'm a liberal. That's some infallible logic there.
Click to expand...

your logic in getting to where you are in this debate is liberal. since you use liberal logic[which in my opinion is illogical] this makes you a liberal!!!

deny and deflect...yup, you are a liberal, lol.:pokey:
 
thebigt said:
your logic in getting to where you are in this debate is liberal. since you use liberal logic[which in my opinion is illogical] this makes you a liberal!!!

deny and deflect...yup, you are a liberal, lol.:pokey:
Click to expand...
Explain how my logic is flawed. You are the one who supports arbitrarily and retroactively changing physical requirements with the sole intention of keeping women out, regardless of it has no bearing on if they are more than physically capable of doing the job and are on par with, or even ahead of, their male peers who have been and already are doing he job well...

The liberal stances on this sort of issue are:
-lowering physical standards to allow women in
-requiring a quota/minimum amount of women in a given position.

Both of these are also applicable to firefighters and police officers, and both are incredibly stupid. That's political correct BS, and I disagree with it.

What I am saying is not "liberal logic" or "PC," it's black and white, yes or no physical requirements. There is no political motivation or "logic" behind it, lol. It's yes or no.
 
thebigt said:
the mens record is 3:43...why should there be a mens record and a womans record if women want equality?
Click to expand...
Because it gives us more entertaining sports to watch, haha. I enjoyed watching the women's swimming events at the Olympics.

I completely agree that the best man will beat the best woman in a sport. We can agree on that. The average man is physically stronger than the average woman, and men have a higher athletic and physical potential than women. We agree!

But what I am saying is that these elite solider aren't at the limit of physical and athletic potential, so it's possible that an elite, outlier woman can be physically gifted enough to be on par with some of these elite male soldiers. These male soldiers aren't running sub-10 second 100 meters, or 4 minute miles, etc either.
 
thebigt said:
the mens record is 3:43...why should there be a mens record and a womans record if women want equality?
Click to expand...

Women want equality to participate, not be held to the same standards of their counterparts.

That's like saying that women want to use the males bathrooms because of equality - it's not that at all. It's that they want their own bathroom, much like the males have their own.
 
Gutterpump said:
Invalid Link Removed

The two women passed the same tests as the men. No special treatment.
Click to expand...

That's not true.

They were allowed to take the course over and over until they passed. The same isn't given to make soldiers. The general demanded that at least one will pass.

Invalid Link Removed

Edit: this is a great example of why the media is such a sham. Weeks of front page headlines on females making ranger status and when it's shown to be fraudulent the same effort isn't given to correct.
 
RegisterJr said:
That's not true.

They were allowed to take the course over and over until they passed. The same isn't given to make soldiers. The general demanded that at least one will pass.

Invalid Link Removed

Edit: this is a great example of why the media is such a sham. Weeks of front page headlines on females making ranger status and when it's shown to be fraudulent the same effort isn't given to correct.
Click to expand...

Good that they were caught, cos they belong in the kitchen/bedroom anyhow right BigT? LOL (sarcasm) :D
 
thebigt said:
muscleupcrohn said:
but you seem to be supporting political correctness!!!

there really truly is a difference between men and women...men were blessed with more physical abilities, but women were blessed with the greatest gift of all-the ability to give birth!!!
Click to expand...
aditionally I and my wife consider my wife my equal only before God. otherwise we're not equal nor do I or her consider or desire her to be my equal. If I wanted my spouse to be my equal I would have married a man...
Click to expand...
 
David Dunn said:
aditionally I and my wife consider my wife my equal only before God. otherwise we're not equal nor do I or her consider or desire her to be my equal. If I wanted my spouse to be my equal I would have married a man...
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying women are identical to men, clearly they aren't, there are 2 sexes. People are only saying they should be given equal opportunity.

In essence, what you're also saying, is that because there are multiple races, none should be treated equal.
 
David Dunn said:
thebigt said:
aditionally I and my wife consider my wife my equal only before God. otherwise we're not equal nor do I or her consider or desire her to be my equal. If I wanted my spouse to be my equal I would have married a man...
Click to expand...
The thing is, I'm not supporting "political correctness" or saying that women are as physically capable as men; I'm saying that if a woman IS (as measured by objective and quantifiable physics measurements and tests) as physically capable as the men she would be working along side, saying that "men are physically superior to women, just look at the Olympics!" is a flawed and irrelevant argument. As I've said, yes, the upper limit and potential of males is higher than females, but even among special force soldiers, is anyone even arguing that all special force soldiers are at, or even near, the genetic limit of human athletic and physical potential? If the requirements of the job are say, only 60% of male potential (random number), but 95% of female potential, perhaps you have 1000 men qualified for the position, and only 1 woman, but it's possible that the one elite woman outperformed 300 of the non-elite men, no? Yes, it's hypothetical, but it is certainly in the realm of possibility. That is why arbitrarily raising the physical standards every time a woman meets or exceeds them doesn't make sense. If one supports that, logically their opposition to women serving in these roles is not based on physical ability.
Click to expand...
 
muscleupcrohn said:
The thing is, I'm not supporting "political correctness" or saying that women are as physically capable as men; I'm saying that if a woman IS (as measured by objective and quantifiable physics measurements and tests) as physically capable as the men she would be working along side, saying that "men are physically superior to women, just look at the Olympics!" is a flawed and irrelevant argument. As I've said, yes, the upper limit and potential of males is higher than females, but even among special force soldiers, is anyone even arguing that all special force soldiers are at, or even near, the genetic limit of human athletic and physical potential? If the requirements of the job are say, only 60% of male potential (random number), but 95% of female potential, perhaps you have 1000 men qualified for the position, and only 1 woman, but it's possible that the one elite woman outperformed 300 of the non-elite men, no? Yes, it's hypothetical, but it is certainly in the realm of possibility. That is why arbitrarily raising the physical standards every time a woman meets or exceeds them doesn't make sense. If one supports that, logically their opposition to women serving in these roles is not based on physical ability.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's not about treating them as identical, as perfect equals. It's about equal opportunity for all. This is the American way.

The strange thing is, nobody has ever said woman are identical to men, yet conservatives are now using this as an arguing point now? The whole thing has been about opportunity and bias. If someone is capable, they are capable. In the workplace, anywhere. If someone proves worthy of a certain pay, or position, so be it. They are then worthy/equal/capable. No bias should affect this because of bodily parts.
 
Jiigzz said:
Women want equality to participate, not be held to the same standards of their counterparts.

That's like saying that women want to use the males bathrooms because of equality - it's not that at all. It's that they want their own bathroom, much like the males have their own.
Click to expand...
why is it about equality when women want to compete against men...but at the same time exclude men from womens sports!!!!

I say let men compete against women, then we will see how many titles serena Williams wins...I just see nothing but hypocrisy here!!!
 
Gutterpump said:
Exactly, it's not about treating them as identical, as perfect equals. It's about equal opportunity for all. This is the American way.

The strange thing is, nobody has ever said woman are identical to men, yet conservatives are now using this as an arguing point now? The whole thing has been about opportunity and bias. If someone is capable, they are capable. In the workplace, anywhere. If someone proves worthy of a certain pay, or position, so be it. They are then worthy/equal/capable. No bias should affect this because of bodily parts.
Click to expand...
That's what I've been saying, haha. I'm not saying that women are as athletic or physically capable as men as a whole or at the elite level, I'm saying that there are some elite women who are more physically capable than even a lot of athletic men. Let's say you have 100 people who meet the physical requirements for an elite military unit: the top 79 are men, #80 is a woman, and 81-100 are all men. Do you only take the top 79 now because 80 is a woman? How does that make sense? If that's something you believe, then you clearly just don't want women serving, and it's NOT related to physical ability at all, so why not just say you don't want women serving, period.
 
thebigt said:
why is it about equality when women want to compete against men...but at the same time exclude men from womens sports!!!!

I say let men compete against women, then we will see how many titles serena Williams wins...I just see nothing but hypocrisy here!!!
Click to expand...

What do you mean though in terms of competition?

You think that because women want to compete in the workforce (Army included) - IE: in everyday things such as the workplace and service, that they should be disqualified and treated less because they don't allow men in certain specialized sports, and vice versa? Wtf? lol your logic is very broken my friend.

Women deserve equal opportunity in the world, no matter what you say about beach volleyball :rollseyes:
 
muscleupcrohn said:
That's what I've been saying, haha. I'm not saying that women are as athletic or physically capable as men as a whole or at the elite level, I'm saying that there are some elite women who are more physically capable than even a lot of athletic men. Let's say you have 100 people who meet the physical requirements for an elite military unit: the top 79 are men, #80 is a woman, and 81-100 are all men. Do you only take the top 79 now because 80 is a woman? How does that make sense? If that's something you believe, then you clearly just don't want women serving, and it's NOT related to physical ability at all, so why not just say you don't want women serving, period.
Click to expand...

It's a logic thing, people in here aren't getting it :) It's actually very straight forward lol - these people are simply old fashioned.
 
thebigt said:
why is it about equality when women want to compete against men...but at the same time exclude men from womens sports!!!!

I say let men compete against women, then we will see how many titles serena Williams wins...I just see nothing but hypocrisy here!!!
Click to expand...
It's not hypocrisy, it's two entirely different issues.

Yes, the best men will always beat he best woman. Male physical potential is higher, as is the average male physical ability. As I've said, not everyone serving in these military units is at the peak of human physical ability and athleticism though, so it's not really relevant. I'm sure an elite female crossfit athlete could pass the physical requirements for these military units. Sure, an elite male athlete would do even better, but the elite woman would still probably destroy many of the males who met the requirements. So what do you do, kick everyone out who doesn't do better than the woman who is the extreme outlier? At this point, your objection to women serving is clearly not due to them being physically capable, as you're retroactively changing the requirements with the explicit purpose of keeping out a physically capable woman, even to the point of kicking out other capable men as well.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
It's not hypocrisy, it's two entirely different issues.

Yes, the best men will always beat he best woman. Male physical potential is higher, as is the average male physical ability. As I've said, not everyone serving in these military units is at the peak of human physical ability and athleticism though, so it's not really relevant. I'm sure an elite female crossfit athlete could pass the physical requirements for these military units. Sure, an elite male athlete would do even better, but the elite woman would still probably destroy many of the males who met the requirements. So what do you do, kick everyone out who doesn't do better than the woman who is the extreme outlier?
Click to expand...

Don't hurt his ego though bro!! Men are superior duh!!! If you don't think so, you must be gay apparently!! LOL
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I'm sure an elite female crossfit athlete could pass the physical requirements for these military units. Sure, an elite male athlete would do even better, but the elite woman would still probably destroy many of the males who met the requirements.
Click to expand...

Old school men don't want to hear this logic! They want these elite women making elite sammiches!!
 
Gutterpump said:
Don't hurt his ego though bro!! Men are superior duh!!! If you don't think so, you must be gay apparently!! LOL
Click to expand...
Hell, I consider myself a decent athlete, but I'm willing to bet that there are woman out there who run a faster 100, 400, and 800 meter, swim faster, and jump higher/farther than just about all of us here. Sure, they'll get smoked by elite male athletes, but they'll still blow 99% of the male population out of the water.
 
Gutterpump said:
Don't hurt his ego though bro!! Men are superior duh!!! If you don't think so, you must be gay apparently!! LOL
Click to expand...

agreed...:amish:


now that we have that cleared up, on to Milwaukee....



we have other important issues that require our expertise.
 
thebigt said:
it doesn't matter here what trump did or didn't do...we are talking about the Clintons-please try to stay on topic, and stop trying to deflect!!!
Click to expand...

Most of the speaking fees were from Bill apparently. Book sales also account for some of the money. Why are the standards different for the Clintons than they are for the Trumps? Just curious. Seems like Trump can sell all the books he wants and get paid to speak, as well as manufacture his clothing line overseas and noone talks about that.

Oh, and the reason I'm talking about Trump like that is that we HAVE NO IDEA how much money he made or from what because he won't release his tax returns. Over the last 40 years all presidential candidates have done so.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Misfit28 said:
Most of the speaking fees were from Bill apparently. Book sales also account for some of the money. Why are the standards different for the Clintons than they are for the Trumps? Just curious. Seems like Trump can sell all the books he wants and get paid to speak, as well as manufacture his clothing line overseas and noone talks about that.

Oh, and the reason I'm talking about Trump like that is that we HAVE NO IDEA how much money he made or from what because he won't release his tax returns. Over the last 40 years all presidential candidates have done so.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

the topic is now Milwaukee....care to add anything?
 
Let's actually look at the requirements for Navy Seals and Army Rangers:

The Seals require a 1.5 mile run in 10:30 (a pace of a 7 minute mile). They say that 9-10 minutes is competitive, meaning a pace of a 6:00 to 6:40 mile for 1.5 miles.

I'm looking at the female crossfit athlete page, and there are a handful of women running a 5k in less than 21 minutes, even less than 20. That's 3.107 miles in 21 minutes, or a pace of a 6:45 mile for TWICE AS LONG as the Seal test is, so even if they kept that same pace, there looking at 10:08 for the 1.5 mile run, or 9:39 if she ran a 20 minute 5k. That not only meets the requirements, but is competitive.

The Ranger requirement is a 2 mile run in 15:12, or a pace of 7:36 per mile. Even at the pace of a longer 5k, these women would run the 2 miles in 13:31 (21 minute 5k) and 12:52 (20 minute 5k). They easily pass this test as well.

I guarantee all these women can do 6 chin ups in their sleep as well.

So if they clearly meet the physical requirements, why shouldn't they be allowed in if they want? You're going to raise the requirements so that they can't get in, the say goodbye to quote a few male soldiers as well.

There you go, no more hypotheticals or "what ifs." Solid, actual numbers...
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Let's actually look at the requirements for Navy Seals and Army Rangers:

The Seals require a 1.5 mile run in 10:30 (a pace of a 7 minute mile). They say that 9-10 minutes is competitive, meaning a pace of a 6:00 to 6:40 mile for 1.5 miles.

I'm looking at the female crossfit athlete page, and there are a handful of women running a 5k in less than 21 minutes, even less than 20. That's 3.107 miles in 21 minutes, or a pace of a 6:45 mile for TWICE AS LONG as the Seal test is, so even if they kept that same pace, there looking at 10:08 for the 1.5 mile run, or 9:39 if she ran a 20 minute 5k. That not only meets the requirements, but is competitive.

The Ranger requirement is a 2 mile run in 15:12, or a pace of 7:36 per mile. Even at the pace of a longer 5k, these women would run the 2 miles in 13:31 (21 minute 5k) and 12:52 (20 minute 5k). They easily pass this test as well.

I guarantee all these women can do 6 chin ups in their sleep as well.

So if they clearly meet the physical requirements, why shouldn't they be allowed in if they want? You're going to raise the requirements so that they can't get in, the say goodbye to quote a few male soldiers as well.
Click to expand...

how many seals and rangers do you think there are?


that is like the old question--what do you call the person who finishes last in medical school---doctor!!!

there are over 35,000 seals, rangers and green beret--with that high of a number I am sure the standard is low enough that a 'few' women would be able to crawl through the cracks...this does not mean that because a women passes the initial test that she should be allowed entry to the elite special forces teams like seal team 8....there is the elite then there is THE ELITE!!!
 
thebigt said:
how many seals and rangers do you think there are?


that is like the old question--what do you call the person who finishes last in medical school---doctor!!!

there are over 35,000 seals, rangers and green beret--with that high of a number I am sure the standard is low enough that a 'few' women would be able to crawl through the cracks...this does not mean that because a women passes the initial test that she should be allowed entry to the elite special forces teams like seal team 8....there is the elite then there is THE ELITE!!!
Click to expand...
So you would kick these elite female athletes out, even though they not only met the physical requirements with ease, but also posted COMPETITIVE times as well? It's fine if you believe that, you're entitled to your beliefs, but that stance is inconsistent with saying women shouldn't be allowed to serve because they're physically incapable, when some of them are not only physically capable, but physically competitive with many of the men.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Or Ronda Rousey. Yeah, a male MMA fighter would beat her for sure, but how many people here would feel confident going into the octagon against her?
Click to expand...

do you take medication? you are freaking compulsive, lol.

go make your girl/boy friend a sandwich and chill, lol.
 
thebigt said:
do you take medication? you are freaking compulsive, lol.

go make your girl/boy friend a sandwich and chill, lol.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one typing entire sentences in all caps with multiple exclamation points, haha. I was curious to see if some women actually could pass these tests, so I looked it up for my own amusement, so I figured I'd post up the results here. You said that I used too many what ifs and hypotheticals, so I gave you actual facts, which means instead of actually responding to these points, it's time to change the subject and/or call my character into question. Damn, this really is a political thread, haha.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I'm not the one typing entire sentences in all caps with multiple exclamation points, haha. I was curious to see if some women actually could pass these tests, so I looked it up for my own amusement, so I figured I'd post up the results here. You said that I used too many what ifs and hypotheticals, so I gave you actual facts, which means instead of actually responding to these points, it's time to change the subject and/or call my character into question. Damn, this really is a political thread, haha.
Click to expand...

do you not have reading comprehension skills? there are 35,000 special forces!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUT out of those 35,000 only the elite of the elite are chosen for commando squads.

I find it incredible that out of OVER 35,000 only a small handful of women are able to pass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
thebigt said:
do you not have reading comprehension skills? there are 35,000 special forces!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUT out of those 35,000 only the elite of the elite are chosen for commando squads.

I find it incredible that out of OVER 35,000 only a small handful of women are able to pass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
We get it, men are physically superior to women. Higher average physical ability and higher maximum potential physical ability. I completely agree with you my friend. NBA >>>>> WNBA. You're acting as if I'm saying that men and women are physical equals among the sexes in general. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that on a purely individual basis, a select few elite women are more physically gifted than the vast majority of males. As a libertarian, I feel that people should be judged on an individual basis; it's not about political correctness, it's the only true equality. It's not about making two unequal things equal, it's about allowing two things that are equal to be equal. If somehow a woman comes in and is competitive with the elite male soldiers, then she should be allowed in. If she's not, then she obviously shouldn't. It's incredibly simple really.
 
I guess i need to simplify....just because a woman passes the entry level position doesn't mean she is qualified to be put into an elite commando unit....

my fear is the military is so politically correct that passing the basic test will allow the politicians to put women on the elite teams...the military should not be used in this manner, imo.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
So you would kick these elite female athletes out, even though they not only met the physical requirements with ease, but also posted COMPETITIVE times as well? It's fine if you believe that, you're entitled to your beliefs, but that stance is inconsistent with saying women shouldn't be allowed to serve because they're physically incapable, when some of them are not only physically capable, but physically competitive with many of the men.
Click to expand...

Da boobs make male soldiers distracted, because they don't have enough discipline. //conservative excuse #345345345345 (I added the last part though, and fully take credit for that witty adendum)
 
thebigt said:
I guess i need to simplify....just because a woman passes the entry level position doesn't mean she is qualified to be put into an elite commando unit....

my fear is the military is so politically correct that passing the basic test will allow the politicians to put women on the elite teams...the military should not be used in this manner, imo.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that a woman should be put on an elite unit if they aren't as capable (physically and in other regards), that would be terrible, I'm saying that if a woman is on par with the males in elite roles, then maybe they can do it too. It's not like the male elite soldiers are Olympic athletes, running sub-10 second 100 meters, benching 400lbs, and dunking on 12 foot rims; there's much more to being an elite soldier than being a freak athlete in great shape. If by some chance, an elite outlier of a woman (think an elite crossfit athlete perhaps) decided to enlist, she may very well be able to keep up with the male commandos. I do agree that there is potential for PC BS to sneak it's way into this whole mess, but that's not what I'm proposing. I propose selecting the elite units based purely on ability. If you need 100 elite commandos, and the top 100 are men, then by all means, pick the 100 men, but if one of them is a woman, then what argument is there that she's physically incapable?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
We get it, men are physically superior to women. Higher average physical ability and higher maximum potential physical ability. I completely agree with you my friend. NBA >>>>> WNBA. You're acting as if I'm saying that men and women are physical equals among the sexes in general. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that on a purely individual basis, a select few elite women are more physically gifted than the vast majority of males. As a libertarian, I feel that people should be judged on an individual basis; it's not about political correctness, it's the only true equality. It's not about making two unequal things equal, it's about allowing two things that are equal to be equal. If somehow a woman comes in and is competitive with the elite male soldiers, then she should be allowed in. If she's not, then she obviously shouldn't. It's incredibly simple really.
Click to expand...

it's also incredibly unfair that women don't have to register for selective service...it's also unfair that if things get sketchy in a combat zone that a woman can screw the entire outfit get pregnant and is outta there. then she claims rape, gets a hardship discharge has military benefits for life after she gets an abortion at militarys expense-then she sues the military for a few million and is set for life.....how is that for a WHAT IF?
 
thebigt said:
do you not have reading comprehension skills? there are 35,000 special forces!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BUT out of those 35,000 only the elite of the elite are chosen for commando squads.

I find it incredible that out of OVER 35,000 only a small handful of women are able to pass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


I bet you wanna put your special unit into elite women, with special force!! Hubba-Hubba! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top