Santorum Says, "If Women Are In Combat, Men May Try To Protect Them"
230 replies, posted
[QUOTE=newbs;34637429]
I'm in no way a sexist, but [/QUOTE]
I don't think your post is 100% true.
[QUOTE=newbs;34637937]We don't have freedom of choice because are decision making processes are based off of past experiences. Our personal experiences differ which gives us the illusion of freedom of choice.
When in combat we can assume that most people are synonymous in their survival instinct, which is where evolutionary psychology comes in (survival of the ingroup, preservation of the species through reproduction etc).[/QUOTE]
Do you have anything to back this up? There is a reason our soldiers are trained extensively before being sent to war, so we DON'T have these sort of "biological" responses.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34638008]You already succumbed to them at that point. You don't really think that wanting to fuck is nothing but your own personal choice, do you?[/QUOTE]
heh, course not
but I can resist it. you can justify all manner of nasty stuff if you simply say "it's a biological urge, therefore it's okay"
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34637994]evopsych is basically pseudoscience[/QUOTE]
How so?
Has he even seen a woman if full combat equipment?
The only dead giveaway it's a woman, is tiny facial differences, otherwise she'd look just like her male counterparts.
Stick your head back up your arse Santorum.
[QUOTE=choco cookie;34638010]This is true. That's why women can't be special ops at all. It might change though. Men do too much to protect women in combat sometimes. Read up on some rescues. Santorum is only stating something that's been said in US military for a long time. Don't understand the big ruckus.[/QUOTE]
yes, because men totally have no choice over their actions and will ignore the MEN SHOOTING GUNS AT THEM to stare at their female comrade's ass
[QUOTE=Turnips5;34638070]heh, course not
but I can resist it. you can justify all manner of nasty stuff if you simply say "it's a biological urge, therefore it's okay"[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that. I never said that. But the notion that we're completely free of natural dispositions to certain behaviour, which Queen Sasha posed, is absolutely ridiculous.
[QUOTE=choco cookie;34638010]This is true. That's why women can't be special ops at all. It might change though. Men do too much to protect women in combat sometimes. Read up on some rescues. Santorum is only stating something that's been said in US military for a long time. Don't understand the big ruckus.[/QUOTE]
Women can't be special ops? Mind explaining that to Germany, or any of the other number of nations that allow women into their special ops programs, including Australia.
[editline]10th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Numidium;34638112]I'm not saying that. I never said that. But the notion that we're completely free of natural dispositions to certain behaviour, which Queen Sasha posed, is absolutely ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
We're not completely free, but we're hardly these mindless biologically driven creatures you describe.
I haven't heard of evopsych being used for anything but justifying the enforcement of gender roles. Mind telling us, for instance, some useful insights that could be used to better our lives or falsifiable predictions it gives us?
[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;34638125]
We're not completely free, but we're hardly these mindless biologically driven creatures you describe.[/QUOTE]
Mind telling me where I described humans as mindless biologically driven creatures? Can you guys stop putting words in my mouth?
[QUOTE=Numidium;34638112]I'm not saying that. I never said that. But the notion that we're completely free of natural dispositions to certain behaviour, which Queen Sasha posed, is absolutely ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
she never said that either
I don't think anyone said anything that I or you said anyone else said they said
heheh
[QUOTE=Numidium;34638174]Mind telling me where I described humans as mindless biologically driven creatures? Can you guys stop putting words in my mouth?[/QUOTE]
You clearly implied it by supporting the argument that men will just drop everything to defend women in a combat situation because of biology.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34638174]Mind telling me where I described humans as mindless biologically driven creatures? Can you guys stop putting words in my mouth?[/QUOTE]
well, there's this
[QUOTE=Numidium;34637733]I don't even know how to respond to that. Did you meet humans yet?[/QUOTE]
in response to a post saying we weren't bound to evolutionary urges
[QUOTE=Turnips5;34638192]well, there's this
in response to a post saying we weren't bound to evolutionary urges[/QUOTE]
Because not agreeing with an extreme position means supporting the opposite extreme. Yeah.
Also, "I think what [B]they're[/B] saying is that they'd value protecting women over protecting men.". Notice the [B]they're[/B]? That post was not about what I think.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34638092]How so?[/QUOTE]
Long answer?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology[/url]
Short answer that's easy to understand?
It's unscientific because it's extremely hard, if not impossible, to test
[QUOTE=Turnips5;34638177]she never said that either
I don't think anyone said anything that I or you said anyone else said they said
heheh[/QUOTE]
I think "enslaved" implies quite a big lack of freedom.
[editline]10th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34638252]Long answer?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology[/url]
Short answer that's easy to understand?
It's unscientific because it's extremely hard, if not impossible, to test[/QUOTE]
*COUGH*
[QUOTE]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since June 2008.
Its lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points. Tagged since July 2011.
It may contain original research. Tagged since July 2011.
[B]It may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Tagged since June 2008.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Numidium;34638259]I think "enslaved" implies quite a big lack of freedom.[/QUOTE]
It's called a hyperbole.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34638248]Because not agreeing with an extreme position means supporting the opposite extreme. Yeah.
Also, "I think what [B]they're[/B] saying is that they'd value protecting women over protecting men.". Notice the [B]they're[/B]? That post was not about what I think.[/QUOTE]
Read: "Girls are inferior BUT I'M NOT SEXIST NOPE NO-SIR-EE"
I guess I don't really know, but I'd imagine that most soldiers have a strong motivation to not get their teammates killed, and that whether they were women or not wouldn't really make a difference.
[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;34638278]It's called a hyperbole.[/QUOTE]
So is claiming that I describe humans as mindless.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34638306]So is claiming that I describe humans as mindless.[/QUOTE]
But that's exactly what you did.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;34638290]Read: "Girls are inferior BUT I'M NOT SEXIST NOPE NO-SIR-EE"[/QUOTE]
Ignoring that I'm just rephrasing what I thought the argument was, how does that in ANY WAY imply that women are inferior to men?
[QUOTE=Numidium;34638259]
*COUGH*[/QUOTE]
It's Wikipedia. Anyone can tag articles with stuff like that. Read the sources the article cites and decide for yourself.
This is like dismissing a textbook because someone doodled on the cover
Oh fuck off Santorum, are you just the poster boy for retarded traditional values or something?
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;34638316]But that's exactly what you did.[/QUOTE]
... You know, I'm not expecting much from someone who resorts to rating dumbs instead of posting his point for an entire page, but come on. I did not say that. You guys can stop making shit up now.
[editline]10th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34638332]It's Wikipedia. Anyone can tag articles with stuff like that. Read the sources the article cites and decide for yourself.
This is like dismissing a textbook because someone doodled on the cover[/QUOTE]
There's a page on evopsych itself that has about the same amount of sources and no opinionation tags. You could say the same about that.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34638336]Oh fuck off Santorum, are you just the poster boy for retarded traditional values or something?[/QUOTE]
"Rick Santorum 2012: Fuck anyone who isn't a White Christian Heterosexual Male"
[QUOTE=Numidium;34638343]
There's a page on evopsych itself that has about the same amount of sources and no opinionation tags. You could say the same about that.[/QUOTE]
The evopsych page isn't a page promoting it though, it's a page talking about it
Some of it is criticisms as well
The page on Christianity is larger than the page on Criticisms of Christianity, doesn't mean the latter is wrong and Christianity is true
Man, i hate the main 3 republicans running. They're all bigots it seems stuck with conservative view points.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34638375]The evopsych page isn't a page promoting it though, it's a page talking about it
Some of it is criticisms as well
The page on Christianity is larger than the page on Criticisms of Christianity, doesn't mean the latter is wrong and Christianity is true[/QUOTE]
Well, there's criticism of pretty much everything. You could turn this around to infinity, I know that the main page being larger than the criticism page doesn't mean anything.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34638248]Because not agreeing with an extreme position means supporting the opposite extreme. Yeah.
Also, "I think what [B]they're[/B] saying is that they'd value protecting women over protecting men.". Notice the [B]they're[/B]? That post was not about what I think.[/QUOTE]
what the shit? you DISAGREED that we WEREN'T enslaved to evolutionary priorities, or at least INSINUATED that you STRONGLY DISAGREED or FOUND HER POST SO RIDICULOUS that you COULDN'T REPLY TO IT
[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;34637617]I wasn't aware we were all enslaved to evolutionary priorities.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Numidium;34637733]I don't even know how to respond to that. Did you meet humans yet?[/QUOTE]
I mean... I don't know. Am I going nuts? Is there some total breakdown of communication occurring? Because to me, that looks like you're doing what I said in capitals above.
There might have been a huge misunderstanding here.
[editline]10th February 2012[/editline]
do you disagree that humans are practically enslaved then? because if you do, we can call it quits for now
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.