Santorum Says, "If Women Are In Combat, Men May Try To Protect Them"
230 replies, posted
I thought they already didn't include women in [i]specific[/i] combat situations because of this. No reason why they can't fight at all though.
[QUOTE=Hostel;34638966]Sorry that I only made one reason, making five would just be reaching for nothing and make my point more illegitimate than it actually is. I wouldn't demand five reasons from you, one good one would suit me.[/QUOTE]
It may suit you, but you could only give one reason that isn't even fully true.
There's a big difference between treating women like dolls and resources and acknowledging their ability to give birth to children as necessary for our species to survive. Can we please get off the hyperbole and twisting people's words in their mouths now?
[QUOTE=Splarg!;34639019]I thought they already didn't include women in [i]specific[/i] combat situations because of this. No reason why they can't fight at all though.[/QUOTE]
The US Military bars women from nearly all combat operations, except some coincidence-based ones. It's a ridiculous rule that is just a left over from when Women weren't allowed in the military at all.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;34639004]Holy shit, are you for real? I've engaged in debate, and Queensasha simply asked you to call her a girl instead of a boy. Is it possible for you to be any more irrational?[/QUOTE]
You've engaged in debate? Like what, rating me dumb? Was that "give me 5 reasons" supposed to be your argument? Pardon me, are you seriously thinking that "give me 5 reasons" is an argument against a point?
[QUOTE=Numidium;34639035]There's a big difference between treating women like dolls and resources and acknowledging their ability to give birth to children as necessary for our species to survive. Can we please get off the hyperbole and twisting people's words in their mouths now?[/QUOTE]
oh my god, the female population of the world could be [I][B]halved[/B][/I] and humanity could survive without a hitch. and so fucking what if they can give birth? men are kinda necessary too.
And yeah I was too harsh to QueenSasha, sorry, but my friend hoodoo's way of debating is pretty frustrating to someone who went to school and learned how to have a proper one.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34639035]There's a big difference between treating women like dolls and resources and acknowledging their ability to give birth to children as necessary for our species to survive. Can we please get off the hyperbole and twisting people's words in their mouths now?[/QUOTE]
There's a big difference between acknowledging that without any women our species would die out, and restricting them from any dangerous situations.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34639060]You've engaged in debate? Like what, rating me dumb? Was that "give me 5 reasons" supposed to be your argument? Pardon me, are you seriously thinking that "give me 5 reasons" is an argument against a point?[/QUOTE]
Ok, you are trolling. I refuse to believe anything else. you are impossibly irrational.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34639006]Does this make me above human then? I've always wanted to be some kind of post human![/QUOTE]
I gave you an answer that was according to the logic in your question. You thought it was stupid answer and I can tell you why; it was a stupid question to begin with.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;34639063]oh my god, the female population of the world could be [I][B]halved[/B][/I] and humanity could survive without a hitch. and so fucking what if they can give birth? men are kinda necessary too.[/QUOTE]
And again, nowhere did I say that men were unncessary. Stop pretending that I'm implying things I'm clearly not. Is this how all leftish FPers argue?
[QUOTE=Last or First;34639085]There's a big difference between acknowledging that without any women our species would die out, and restricting them from any dangerous situations.[/QUOTE]
Thank you! Exactly the words I was looking for.
[QUOTE=Hostel;34639101]I gave you an answer that was according to the logic in your question. You thought it was stupid answer and I can tell you why, it was a stupid question to begin with.[/QUOTE]
The question was mocking your idea that some how humans are predisposed to save women under some dumb evolutionary psychology bullshit.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;34639093]Ok, you are trolling. I refuse to believe anything else. you are impossibly irrational.[/QUOTE]
Please, explain to me how "give me 5 reasons" is a valid point against any thesis ever then. I'm really hyped to hear it. I've never seen anyone in a serious discussion say that, but hey, you gotta know it.
hoodoo, it does kind of dilute the meaning of your rating when you use it on tonnes of people at once
reserve it for when someone says something really, inexplicably hateful or stupid
[QUOTE=Last or First;34639085]There's a big difference between acknowledging that without any women our species would die out, and restricting them from any dangerous situations.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even disagreeing with that. Yeah. I know. I don't see how my post is incompatible with that. Glad you could rephrase it so it satisfies QueenSasha.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34639130]The question was mocking your idea that some how humans are predisposed to save women under some dumb evolutionary psychology bullshit.[/QUOTE]
thanks, i couldn't figure out the words.
I'm not feeling obliged to partake in serious debate with someone who's initial response to my arguments is "Hurr durr ur dumb". I'm pretty sure everyone else here understands that. Thank you Turnips.
I don't think he's ever viewed any war films.. Hell, Forrest Gump even has a guy protecting his friend..
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34639130]The question was mocking your idea that some how humans are predisposed to save women under some dumb evolutionary psychology bullshit.[/QUOTE]
So your idea of constructive debate in this instance is mocking? I left this out of my previous post, but I suppose I'll say it now. Children win arguments like that. I think I'm a lot smarter than to think that men are predispositioned to save women. I said men have an inclination to do it. If I wanted to say that men are predispositioned, I would have said it. Now, the both of you, cargo and hoodoo, stop putting words in our mouths.
Honestly, I believe both roles of men and women in the military are needed. If you think, men are better at the grunt work on the ground, and women are better at doing supportive roles. Women are also better pilots then men if i remember correctly. Just think back to World War 2..
[QUOTE=Hostel;34639233]So your idea of constructive debate in this instance is mocking? I left this out of my previous post, but I suppose I'll say it now. Children win arguments like that. I think I'm a lot smarter than to think that men are predispositioned to save women. I said men have an inclination to do it. If I wanted to say that men are predispositioned, I would have said it. Now, the both of you, cargo and hoodoo, stop putting words in our mouths.[/QUOTE]
Men are inclined to on a social level, but not an evolutionary one.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34639409]Men are inclined to on a social level, but not an evolutionary one.[/QUOTE]
Isn't the social level based on the evolutionary one though?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34639409]Men are inclined to on a social level, but not an evolutionary one.[/QUOTE]
It's reinforced on a social level, but it occurs in every society around the world, even in secluded societies. That's a lot of fingers pointing toward evolutionary influence. Of course military training might reverse the habit, but I don't think anyone can guarantee a 100% success rate.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34639429]Isn't the social level based on the evolutionary one though?[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. Is the idea of gays being bad evolutionary? Of course not.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34639499]Not necessarily. Is the idea of gays being bad evolutionary? Of course not.[/QUOTE]
Well, not to stir a nest here, but seeing as promoting your own genes is the point of evolution, being gay and thus not having an own child is pretty counter-evolutionary. Or in the case of what you said, it's caring about someone else's genes, which in turn is counter-evolutionary. So you're right in a way.
And before anyone goes to turn my words around, I did not say that I personally oppose gay marriage, I am just saying that being gay is disadvantageous in a socially darwinistic context. I'm not a social darwinist. And I know that being gay is not a choice.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34639619]Well, not to stir a nest here, but seeing as promoting your own genes is the point of evolution, being gay and thus not having an own child is pretty counter-evolutionary. Or in the case of what you said, it's caring about someone else's genes, which in turn is counter-evolutionary. So you're right in a way.
And before anyone goes to turn my words around, I did not say that I personally oppose gay marriage, I am just saying that being gay is disadvantageous in a socially darwinistic context. I'm not a social darwinist. And I know that being gay is not a choice.[/QUOTE]
Look up the concept of 'breeding by proxy'.
Social Darwinism is as fucking stupid and baseless as Evolutionary Psychology.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34639951]Social Darwinism is as fucking stupid and baseless as Evolutionary Psychology.[/QUOTE]
it really is, good thing Numidium says he isn't one then
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;34639928]Look up the concept of 'breeding by proxy'.[/QUOTE]
I know what it is, and there's a reason I didn't mention it. If you think about it more than a second you'd realize that breeding by proxy only makes evolutionary sense for one half of the couple. I thought I would not have to say that in my post, apparently I do. And good job continuing the rating thing.
[editline]10th February 2012[/editline]
And there's another difference between judging a stance or ideology valid and supporting it. I don't say social darwinism is baseless, totally don't think that, but I don't support it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.