• Santorum Says, "If Women Are In Combat, Men May Try To Protect Them"
    230 replies, posted
maybe if those women would show some cleavage on duty those fuckers would think twice about shooting them
Israeli women can't serve in combat roles? Mr. Santorum, the Caracal Battalion might take issue with that: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion[/url]
I just love instigating controversy. :) It'd so funny to see people go on an emotional roller-coaster every-time their ethics are challenged. The funnest ones are those who strictly deny the observation, as if they are desperately trying to scrub out any controversial thought that hurts their personal set of ethics. Reminds me of religion denying evolution. ;) haha same logic, liberal view. Here's to 4 more pages of you guys trying to get me out of your brain. :) *cheers* [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Self confessed troll" - Orkel))[/highlight]
Aren't there already a lot of countries that allow women in combat roles? Why does America have to be behind everyone else? Even Russia allows women in combat positions and they're allowed to be special forces in Germany, Poland and South Korea.
[QUOTE=newbs;34641374]I just love instigating controversy. :) It'd so funny to see people go on an emotional roller-coaster every-time their ethics are challenged. The funnest ones are those who strictly deny the observation, as if they are desperately trying to scrub out any controversial thought that hurts their personal set of ethics. Reminds me of religion denying evolution. ;) haha same logic, liberal view. Here's to 4 more pages of you guys trying to get me out of your brain. :) *cheers*[/QUOTE] Erm maybe the reason we get so pissed off is because the ethics you are proposing have caused so much inequality throughout history.
[QUOTE=newbs;34641374]I just love instigating controversy. :) It'd so funny to see people go on an emotional roller-coaster every-time their ethics are challenged. The funnest ones are those who strictly deny the observation, as if they are desperately trying to scrub out any controversial thought that hurts their personal set of ethics. Reminds me of religion denying evolution. ;) haha same logic, liberal view. Here's to 4 more pages of you guys trying to get me out of your brain. :) *cheers*[/QUOTE] lol i trole u ;) XDDDD
[QUOTE=newbs;34637429]I fucking hate how all political correctness looks past the obvious implications of evolutionary psychology. I'm in no way a sexist, but I can see why woman would have priority in a life/death situation as they are a key resource for reproduction in our species. When we are put in a life/death situation we are going to prioritize the woman, because a single man can impregnate multiple woman, thus securing the continuation of our species. It's just how are fucking minds work when we're in survival mode because we're fucking animals. Fucking lean to deal with it.[/QUOTE] Anyone who says anything along the lines of "I'm not a X, but" just destroys their argument instantly. Maybe you should lean to deal with it.
isn't it part of a soldier's job to protect his/her fellow soldiers anyway I don't see the problem here
[QUOTE=Numidium;34637215]I always thought that was the reason there were no women in combat roles?[/QUOTE] I always thought the men would "get distracted".
[QUOTE=newbs;34641374]I just love instigating controversy. :) It'd so funny to see people go on an emotional roller-coaster every-time their ethics are challenged. The funnest ones are those who strictly deny the observation, as if they are desperately trying to scrub out any controversial thought that hurts their personal set of ethics. Reminds me of religion denying evolution. ;) haha same logic, liberal view. Here's to 4 more pages of you guys trying to get me out of your brain. :) *cheers*[/QUOTE] You use a lot of words to get across no point at all.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxnVHaC0EyQ[/media] This would happen if women were in the military. Obviously.
I can honestly understand what he is trying to say but to be honest I still think women should be able to serve.
[QUOTE=Virtanen;34641928]isn't it part of a soldier's job to protect his/her fellow soldiers anyway I don't see the problem here[/QUOTE] The concern is men running to rescue of a woman in serious condition rather than a man in critical condition. [QUOTE=KillaGunna24;34644612]I can honestly understand what he is trying to say but to be honest I still think women should be able to serve.[/QUOTE] Despite what I've had to say on the last two pages, I still think women should be able to serve in combat. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;34641538]Erm maybe the reason we get so pissed off is because the ethics you are proposing have caused so much inequality throughout history.[/QUOTE] Of all things that you are going to be mad about, it's going to be about gender inequality? This is only one instance too; we haven't even covered proper conduct yet. Do you understand that there has already been far too many cases of sexual harassment in the military? Don't hide your frustration with things such that, save it for when you talk to a racist or neo-nazi.
how about the world just has no combat or conflict period for the rest of eternity
[QUOTE=newbs;34641374]I just love instigating controversy. :) It'd so funny to see people go on an emotional roller-coaster every-time their ethics are challenged. The funnest ones are those who strictly deny the observation, as if they are desperately trying to scrub out any controversial thought that hurts their personal set of ethics. Reminds me of religion denying evolution. ;) haha same logic, liberal view. Here's to 4 more pages of you guys trying to get me out of your brain. :) *cheers*[/QUOTE] you don't have many friends do you
Augh, this guy just doesn't stop. He's basically the embodiment of every opinion I've hated in this country. Ever.
[QUOTE=newbs;34637429]I fucking hate how all political correctness looks past the obvious implications of evolutionary psychology. I'm in no way a sexist, but I can see why woman would have priority in a life/death situation as they are a key resource for reproduction in our species. When we are put in a life/death situation we are going to prioritize the woman, because a single man can impregnate multiple woman, thus securing the continuation of our species. It's just how are fucking minds work when we're in survival mode because we're fucking animals. Fucking lean to deal with it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=newbs;34638859]If it isn't from an academic article or peer-reviewed I refuse to acknowledge it in a formal debate. Life is just a lot cleaner that way.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Numidium;34637544]Wasn't aware that "evopsych" was an invalid kind of psychology.[/QUOTE] [B]Welcome to the jungle, motherfuckers![/B] [url]http://hum.sagepub.com/content/57/8/923.short[/url] [QUOTE]Seven years have passed since Nigel Nicholson published his manifesto for evolutionary psychology (EP) in Human Relations. Given EP’s continued popularity, this article undertakes a timely reappraisal of its assumptions and practical implications. In particular, it assesses EP’s claim to unify the social and natural sciences by establishing a foundation for psychology in the evolutionary biological sciences. I demonstrate that EP is found wanting in both these areas: it cannot satisfy the rigorous demands of experimental evolutionary biology and does not deal well with some of the key problems faced by mainstream psychologists. As a result, EP’s claims as they pertain to management and organizations are speculative and highly normative, despite vigorous protestations to the contrary.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/sex-jealousy-and-violence/[/url] [QUOTE]On the one hand, many behavioral scientists define evolutionary psychology simply as “the evolutionary study of mind and behavior.” So conceived, evolutionary psychology is a field of inquiry, akin to mechanics, which is defined not by any specific theories about human psychology, but by the questions it investigates. And these questions cover a broad spectrum. Why do males in some hunter-gatherer populations hunt, which offers highly variable caloric returns, when they could reliably provide their families with equivalent calories by gathering? Why do women in some hunter-gatherer populations wait an average of four years between pregnancies? What evolutionary forces drove cortical expansion in humans? How and why did altruism, or language, evolve? ... On the other hand, several prominent and influential behavioral scientists — led on the popular front by Steven Pinker (The Blank Slate) and David Buss (The Evolution of Desire and The Murderer Next Door) and on the academic front by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby (The Adapted Mind) — define evolutionary psychology as a specific set of doctrines concerning the evolutionary history and current nature of the human mind. In this sense, evolutionary psychology as a field of inquiry has been elevated by its practitioners to an all encompassing paradigm of Evolutionary Psychology (EP). ... Despite being an ardent fan of evolutionary psychology, I’m deeply skeptical about the Evolutionary Psychology paradigm. One problem concerns EP’s claim that the human mind is massively modular. Our best evidence indicates, instead, that the human mind is adapted to adapt to highly variable and often rapidly changing environments. Our species’ great cognitive achievement was not the evolution of a legion of idiot savants, but the evolution of cortical plasticity, which enables the brain to reorganize itself in response to changing epistemic demands. A second problem concerns the doctrine that our minds are adapted to the Stone Age. First, this idea greatly underestimates the rate at which natural and sexual selection can drive evolutionary change. Recent studies have demonstrated that selection can overhaul a species’ adaptations in as few as eighteen generations (for humans, roughly 450 years). Second, the principal driving forces in human psychological evolution have been the demands of competition and cooperation with fellow humans. This created an arms race in human psychological evolution, in which every bit of evolution in human psychology changed the competitive and cooperative environments to which human psychology needed to adapt. And this arms race accelerated the rate of human psychological evolution. So there has undoubtedly been significant human psychological evolution since the Pleistocene. We’re not simply Pleistocene hunter-gatherers, like Fred and Wilma Flintstone, struggling to survive and reproduce in evolutionarily novel suburban habitats.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001109[/url] [QUOTE]Evolutionary Psychology (EP) views the human mind as organized into many modules, each underpinned by psychological adaptations designed to solve problems faced by our Pleistocene ancestors. We argue that the key tenets of the established EP paradigm require modification in the light of recent findings from a number of disciplines, including human genetics, evolutionary biology, cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology, and paleoecology. For instance, many human genes have been subject to recent selective sweeps; humans play an active, constructive role in co-directing their own development and evolution; and experimental evidence often favours a general process, rather than a modular account, of cognition. A redefined EP could use the theoretical insights of modern evolutionary biology as a rich source of hypotheses concerning the human mind, and could exploit novel methods from a variety of adjacent research fields.[/QUOTE] Long story short: -Evolutionary psychology has huge flaws and is in many implementations not scientific -Evolutionary psychology has [I]limited[/I] applications -This ain't one of them You should both apologize for having made this thread four pages of concentrated awful.
im sorry but if i save the dude first, he isnt going to suck my dick in the trench later on that day so yes i would rather save the ladies first
Well, the brain developed via evolution, so some of the inner machinations probably developed along with it, considering that psychology is just the exchange of neurological chemicals. But I'm not a psychologist or a neurologist. So, really, I'm more like a clown talking about rocket science.
[QUOTE=joes33431;34649871]Well, the brain developed via evolution, so some of the inner machinations probably developed along with it, considering that psychology is just the exchange of neurological chemicals.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Our best evidence indicates, instead, that the human mind is adapted to adapt to highly variable and often rapidly changing environments. Our species’ great cognitive achievement was not the evolution of a legion of idiot savants, but the evolution of cortical plasticity, which enables the brain to reorganize itself in response to changing epistemic demands.[/QUOTE] So, yeah, no, it's not "we're a jeep that got modified over time and still reflects its jeep roots" so much as "we're some sort of crazy kitbash you can reconfigure on the fly". I mean, yes, there's obvious aspects of old shit in the brain, but what they are and how they work are infinitely more subtle and complex than HURR PROTECTA DA WIMMENZ DURR. But you're forgiven for acknowledging your lack of understanding.
Leave it to xenocidebot to come in here and slam down the facts.
[QUOTE=newbs;34641374]I just love instigating controversy. :) It'd so funny to see people go on an emotional roller-coaster every-time their ethics are challenged. The funnest ones are those who strictly deny the observation, as if they are desperately trying to scrub out any controversial thought that hurts their personal set of ethics. Reminds me of religion denying evolution. ;) haha same logic, liberal view. Here's to 4 more pages of you guys trying to get me out of your brain. :) *cheers*[/QUOTE] Next time you troll, try not making a [I]complete[/I] ass of yourself. Actually, you know what, don't. Just cease posting. [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34649678][B]Welcome to the jungle, motherfuckers![/B] [url]http://hum.sagepub.com/content/57/8/923.short[/url] [url]http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/sex-jealousy-and-violence/[/url] [url]http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001109[/url] Long story short: -Evolutionary psychology has huge flaws and is in many implementations not scientific -Evolutionary psychology has [I]limited[/I] applications -This ain't one of them You should both apologize for having made this thread four pages of concentrated awful.[/QUOTE] Leave it to the engineering guy to come in with sources, jesus.
I could get the whole "men must protect women in combat" thing if we were still using swords and hammers in fights and if we were still in the middle ages but I don't think a gun makes more or less damage depending on the wielder's gender.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;34650693]I could get the whole "men must protect women in combat" thing if we were still using swords and hammers in fights and if we were still in the middle ages but I don't think a gun makes more or less damage depending on the wielder's gender.[/QUOTE] Also considering they [B]MUST[/B] complete some serious training in order to be sent to the combat line. It ain't just random bimbos who got a uniform and rifle thrown at them. But hey, knowing that requires common sense, and we all know how much the Republican candidates have of that: [sp]close to nothing[/sp]
[QUOTE=Van-man;34650894]Also considering they [B]MUST[/B] complete some serious training in order to be sent to the combat line. It ain't just random bimbos who got a uniform and rifle thrown at them. But hey, knowing that requires common sense, and we all know how much the Republican candidates have of that: [sp]close to nothing[/sp][/QUOTE] I barely know shit about the army, so this question might sound stupid, but are women and men receiving the same training in the current state of things in the US ? It's just a side question, I'm not gonna use the answer for the debate or anything, just me being curious.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;34650968]I barely know shit about the army, so this question might sound stupid, but are women and men receiving the same training in the current state of things in the US ? It's just a side question, I'm not gonna use the answer for the debate or anything, just me being curious.[/QUOTE] Not from the US so fuck I dunno. But if I'm not mistaken it's pretty much the same, though there's probably some minor differences.
There is SOME truth to what he's saying, But who's to say since it hasn't been done There's a way of thinking that you may put yourself or another more critically wounded at risk trying to help a female when her injuries aren't as severe, AND the sight of a female killed and maimed is worse than seeing a male having an adverse affect on mental health even more so than the usual PTSD and casualties But that's just all theory, really And, as for training, Women have a handicap, so to speak. They get more time to complete a run, they have to do less Situps, pushups, pullups than men. But as far as I know that's just for Physical requirements, everything else is the same
I didn't know a whole lot about Evopsych, and I wasn't aware that it's not an actual science, that's why I said that. And zeke's highly contested wikipedia article he dragged in to make a point seemed pretty fishy. Sorry for being misinformed and making a cynical comment based on that. I didn't plan on inciting the amounts of shit that came out of it.
It should be about ability not what sex the person is, if a woman can perform as good as a man then she should be allowed in. [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TheTalon;34651277]There is SOME truth to what he's saying, But who's to say since it hasn't been done There's a way of thinking that you may put yourself or another more critically wounded at risk trying to help a female when her injuries aren't as severe, AND the sight of a female killed and maimed is worse than seeing a male having an adverse affect on mental health even more so than the usual PTSD and casualties But that's just all theory, really [/QUOTE] I highly doubt that is true unless the person is a sexist like Santorum.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34651293]It should be about ability not what sex the person is, if a woman can perform as good as a man then she should be allowed in. [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] I highly doubt that is true unless the person is a sexist like Santorum.[/QUOTE] Hey that was the reasoning as told to me by a CSM and a LTC in the Army
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.