by The Rifle Brigade » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:30 pm
by BladeSlayer Land » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:45 pm
by Greater Holy Germania (Ancient) » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:50 pm
by Rolling squid » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:52 pm
Hammurab wrote:An athiest doesn't attend mass, go to confession, or know a lot about catholicism. So basically, an athiest is the same as a catholic.
Post-Unity Terra wrote:Golly gosh, one group of out-of-touch rich white guys is apparently more in touch with the average man than the other group of out-of-touch rich white guys.
by Grave_n_idle » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:52 pm
BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
by Unchecked Expansion » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:52 pm
BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
by Lacadaemon » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:53 pm
by The Rifle Brigade » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:53 pm
BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.
by Greater Holy Germania (Ancient) » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:55 pm
by The Rifle Brigade » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:55 pm
Rolling squid wrote:The problem with women on the front lines isn't the women, it's the men. IIRC, when Israel first started deploying mixed gender combat units, the causality rates went up a significant amount because the males in the unit would do all sorts of stupid things trying to protect their female counterparts. So the real solution is to take men of the front lines.
by Draconikus » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:56 pm
by Rigbyland » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:57 pm
by The Rifle Brigade » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:58 pm
Lacadaemon wrote:It's fine for the pongos I suppose. But nobody has yet refuted the results of a Royal Navy inquiry in 1872 that scientifically proved what people had long suspected: women are bad luck at sea.
So I would object to their presence in Her Majesty's Senior Service.
by Gimmadonis » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:59 pm
Muravyets wrote:Your argument is like the Eiffel Tower sculpted out of bullshit.
by Flameswroth » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:59 pm
Draconikus wrote:So, if mixed groupings would cause problems, then why not have single-sex battalions and such?
Czardas wrote:Why should we bail out climate change with billions of dollars, when lesbians are starving in the streets because they can't afford an abortion?
Reagan Clone wrote:What you are proposing is glorifying God by loving, respecting, or at least tolerating, his other creations.
That is the gayest fucking shit I've ever heard, and I had Barry Manilow perform at the White House in '82.
by Rigbyland » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:01 pm
The Rifle Brigade wrote:And "small amount of help"? Access to fifty percent of your countries best, kept out of the fray because they squat to piss? That's more than a "small amount of help".
by The Rifle Brigade » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:01 pm
Rigbyland wrote:Wait... this is OOC, right?
Anyway, if so, I support your idea. Us, er, "fine American hens", as you called us, should be able to serve just like men, provided me can make it through the various training programs.
by BladeSlayer Land » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:02 pm
And "small amount of help"? Access to fifty percent of your countries best, kept out of the fray because they squat to piss? That's more than a "small amount of help".
by Rigbyland » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:02 pm
Flameswroth wrote:Draconikus wrote:So, if mixed groupings would cause problems, then why not have single-sex battalions and such?
Fairly certain that an entire battalion of hormone-infused women on the rag doing battle is inflicting some sort of war-time cruelty on the enemy that is prohibited in the Geneva convention.
by Mackedamia » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:03 pm
Unchecked Expansion wrote:BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
I assume those are statistical averages? So would you be opposed to a woman who could pass the standards for men's strength being in the armed forces?
Besides, how important is strength in the modern soldier? Endurance and athletic ability are important, but since we use guns killing power is not based on strength. I know there's a lot of gear to carry, but how about women armour crewmen?
by The Infinite Dunes » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:03 pm
I'm fairly sure guns don't require that much strength to fire. In fact I'd believe the primary attribute required might be how dexterous you are.BladeSlayer Land wrote:The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.
by Lacadaemon » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:03 pm
The Rifle Brigade wrote:We've since developed non-buggery based methods of navigation and propulsion.
We don't always use them...
by Flameswroth » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:03 pm
Rigbyland wrote:Flameswroth wrote:Draconikus wrote:So, if mixed groupings would cause problems, then why not have single-sex battalions and such?
Fairly certain that an entire battalion of hormone-infused women on the rag doing battle is inflicting some sort of war-time cruelty on the enemy that is prohibited in the Geneva convention.
Thou hath felt no scorn like a woman's fury.
Czardas wrote:Why should we bail out climate change with billions of dollars, when lesbians are starving in the streets because they can't afford an abortion?
Reagan Clone wrote:What you are proposing is glorifying God by loving, respecting, or at least tolerating, his other creations.
That is the gayest fucking shit I've ever heard, and I had Barry Manilow perform at the White House in '82.
by Grave_n_idle » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:03 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Atrito, Dunkirlothesia, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Ravemath, Sarolandia, Singaporen Empire, Statesburg, Valentine Z
Advertisement