NATION

PASSWORD

First female 11X has been accepted

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:44 am

Thiefs County wrote:
Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Well, they will be replace by competent female soldiers, won't they/

Pfff, the line of reasoning that 'women can distract men' was used to keep women from being elected, to keep them from the police forces and to keep them from the work force. In all three instances, it proved absolute bollocks. Men should be able to keep it in their pants.


We are talking about men who are actually fighting in another country, not someone sitting in a building making laws or someone walking around town.


So, you would stare at a woman's tits and not focus on your job?

That's a pretty odd way of admitting that you would.
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21996
Founded: Feb 20, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:44 am

Thiefs County wrote:
Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Well, they will be replace by competent female soldiers, won't they/

Pfff, the line of reasoning that 'women can distract men' was used to keep women from being elected, to keep them from the police forces and to keep them from the work force. In all three instances, it proved absolute bollocks. Men should be able to keep it in their pants.


We are talking about men who are actually fighting in another country, not someone sitting in a building making laws or someone walking around town.

Actually fighting, yeah. I mean, if you can act calmly under fire, a woman in combat gear shouldn't really be a problem, should it?
The name's James. James Usari. Well, my name is not actually James Usari, so don't bother actually looking it up, but it'll do for now.
Lack of a real name means compensation through a real face. My debt is settled
Part-time Kebab tycoon in Glasgow.

User avatar
Thiefs County
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 108
Founded: Dec 22, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Thiefs County » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:44 am

Though I will say that women have proven to be better snipers than most men, and lets not forget the night witches in world war 2 or whatever the krauts called them.
same

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54847
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperializt Russia » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:44 am

Thiefs County wrote:
Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Well, they will be replace by competent female soldiers, won't they/

Pfff, the line of reasoning that 'women can distract men' was used to keep women from being elected, to keep them from the police forces and to keep them from the work force. In all three instances, it proved absolute bollocks. Men should be able to keep it in their pants.


We are talking about men who are actually fighting in another country, not someone sitting in a building making laws or someone walking around town.

Ok.

Your point?
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
Hirota
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7528
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:45 am

Esternial wrote:Frankly being good in combat situations sounds more important than carrying stuff on your back but maybe the Army is just a really fancy boyscouts movement and I was wrong all along.
Adequate supplies are arguably more important than being good in a fight - what good is being really good at fighting if you have no ammo or rations? Sure you could probably use your comerades, but don't they need them too?

To a great extent, 20th century advances have reduced the need for baggage trains, but being able to carry what you need to do your job is pretty damned important
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
Thiefs County
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 108
Founded: Dec 22, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Thiefs County » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:46 am

Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:
Thiefs County wrote:
We are talking about men who are actually fighting in another country, not someone sitting in a building making laws or someone walking around town.

Actually fighting, yeah. I mean, if you can act calmly under fire, a woman in combat gear shouldn't really be a problem, should it?


Soldiers almost never act 100% calm under fire.
same

User avatar
Victoriala
Senator
 
Posts: 4772
Founded: Feb 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Victoriala » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:46 am

Thiefs County wrote:
Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Well, they will be replace by competent female soldiers, won't they/

Pfff, the line of reasoning that 'women can distract men' was used to keep women from being elected, to keep them from the police forces and to keep them from the work force. In all three instances, it proved absolute bollocks. Men should be able to keep it in their pants.


We are talking about men who are actually fighting in another country, not someone sitting in a building making laws or someone walking around town.


Can a pervert not let himself distracted by glancing on anything that can give him at least a chub for two seconds
Last edited by Victoriala on Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VICTORIALA
Fuck discourse, Memes are the way forward (its inevitable and you know it)
FACTBOOK | LA SOCIÉTÉ | NATIONS | ILLUMINATOR | +
Fucking little island person. 陰 and 陽 but mostly 陰. I draw and do designs.
My NS activity is 90% shitposts. Singy and I fuck each other occasionally.
Equity is True Equality. Pro-Aufklärung, Anti-Gegenaufklärung. [economic: -4.0 social: -4.21]

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:46 am

Hirota wrote:
Esternial wrote:Frankly being good in combat situations sounds more important than carrying stuff on your back but maybe the Army is just a really fancy boyscouts movement and I was wrong all along.
Adequate supplies are arguably more important than being good in a fight - what good is being really good at fighting if you have no ammo or rations? Sure you could probably use your comerades, but don't they need them too?

To a great extent, 20th century advances have reduced the need for baggage trains, but being able to carry what you need to do your job is pretty damned important


Sure, but that really has nothing to do whether a particular person can or can't do their job of being able to carry what they need to do their job.
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Thiefs County
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 108
Founded: Dec 22, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Thiefs County » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:47 am

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Thiefs County wrote:
We are talking about men who are actually fighting in another country, not someone sitting in a building making laws or someone walking around town.


So, you would stare at a woman's tits and not focus on your job?

That's a pretty odd way of admitting that you would.


Worrying about a male soldier staring at a female soldiers breasts definitely inst the only thing I'm talking about here.
same

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:47 am

Victoriala wrote:
Thiefs County wrote:
We are talking about men who are actually fighting in another country, not someone sitting in a building making laws or someone walking around town.


Can a pervert not look at things that give him at least a chub for two seconds


Nah, all men in the military are going to die if we let a woman with tits be around them.

It's just boys being boys *nods*
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22873
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:47 am

Thiefs County wrote:
Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Actually fighting, yeah. I mean, if you can act calmly under fire, a woman in combat gear shouldn't really be a problem, should it?


Soldiers almost never act 100% calm under fire.

Nobody said they did. You don't need to be a fucking robot to not undress your coworkers in your mind.
While she had no regrets about throwing the lever to douse her husband's mistress in molten gold, Blanche did feel a pang of conscience for the innocent bystanders whose proximity had caused them to suffer gilt by association.

King of Snark, Real Piece of Work, Metabolizer of Oxygen, Old Man from The East Pacific, by the Malevolence of Her Infinite Terribleness Catherine Gratwick the Sole and True Claimant to the Bears Armed Vacancy, Protector of the Realm

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:48 am

Thiefs County wrote:
Soldati senza confini wrote:
So, you would stare at a woman's tits and not focus on your job?

That's a pretty odd way of admitting that you would.


Worrying about a male soldier staring at a female soldiers breasts definitely inst the only thing I'm talking about here.


It seems like it is the ONLY thing you are arguing. Care to expand?
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21996
Founded: Feb 20, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:48 am

Thiefs County wrote:
Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Actually fighting, yeah. I mean, if you can act calmly under fire, a woman in combat gear shouldn't really be a problem, should it?


Soldiers almost never act 100% calm under fire.

Well, in that case, the gunfire should have most of their attention.

Let's look at it this way: the Peshmerga has been kicking IS ass with female soldiers for over a year now. Their armed forces haven't fallen apart yet, have they?
The name's James. James Usari. Well, my name is not actually James Usari, so don't bother actually looking it up, but it'll do for now.
Lack of a real name means compensation through a real face. My debt is settled
Part-time Kebab tycoon in Glasgow.

User avatar
Thiefs County
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 108
Founded: Dec 22, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Thiefs County » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:48 am

Er btw I wont be able to talk in a few minutes for about an hour because I'm heading to a meeting currently.
same

User avatar
Esternial
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 54394
Founded: May 09, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Esternial » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:49 am

Hirota wrote:
Esternial wrote:Frankly being good in combat situations sounds more important than carrying stuff on your back but maybe the Army is just a really fancy boyscouts movement and I was wrong all along.
Adequate supplies are arguably more important than being good in a fight - what good is being really good at fighting if you have no ammo or rations? Sure you could probably use your comerades, but don't they need them too?

To a great extent, 20th century advances have reduced the need for baggage trains, but being able to carry what you need to do your job is pretty damned important

Yeah, and a bunch of people are assuming most women that dare come close to enlisting are by default incapable of carrying that weight on their frail, tit-adjacent shoulders.

As I said before, women that enlist for this kind of duty aren't randomly sampled from the population. Most are likely on the higher end of the spectrum when it comes to fitness and it's highly unlikely they'll be sent out on missions if they're objectively bad soldiers, which takes accounts of all relevant factors, including but not exclusively their weight capacity.

Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:
Thiefs County wrote:
Soldiers almost never act 100% calm under fire.

Well, in that case, the gunfire should have most of their attention.

Let's look at it this way: the Peshmerga has been kicking IS ass with female soldiers for over a year now. Their armed forces haven't fallen apart yet, have they?

You're missing the important question.

"How much can they lift?"
Last edited by Esternial on Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bolnoa
Envoy
 
Posts: 339
Founded: Feb 17, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Bolnoa » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:49 am

The balkens wrote:Huh.

good for her.


I agree with this.
Want to join the The Communist Legion? You are welcome to come by anytime!

Visit, see some of our dispatches! We like new members in out region and we'd be grateful if you help us grow our region to make it bigger and better then before!

User avatar
Victoriala
Senator
 
Posts: 4772
Founded: Feb 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Victoriala » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:50 am

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Victoriala wrote:
Can a pervert not look at things that give him at least a chub for two seconds


Nah, all men in the military are going to die if we let a woman with tits be around them.

It's just boys being boys *nods*

I'm a straight dude and I don't even care about seeing tits on the stree

And I'm not even a soldier
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VICTORIALA
Fuck discourse, Memes are the way forward (its inevitable and you know it)
FACTBOOK | LA SOCIÉTÉ | NATIONS | ILLUMINATOR | +
Fucking little island person. 陰 and 陽 but mostly 陰. I draw and do designs.
My NS activity is 90% shitposts. Singy and I fuck each other occasionally.
Equity is True Equality. Pro-Aufklärung, Anti-Gegenaufklärung. [economic: -4.0 social: -4.21]

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22873
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:50 am

Thiefs County wrote:Er btw I wont be able to talk in a few minutes for about an hour because I'm heading to a meeting currently.

Why do you feel the need to tell us this?
While she had no regrets about throwing the lever to douse her husband's mistress in molten gold, Blanche did feel a pang of conscience for the innocent bystanders whose proximity had caused them to suffer gilt by association.

King of Snark, Real Piece of Work, Metabolizer of Oxygen, Old Man from The East Pacific, by the Malevolence of Her Infinite Terribleness Catherine Gratwick the Sole and True Claimant to the Bears Armed Vacancy, Protector of the Realm

User avatar
Prosorusiya
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1605
Founded: Oct 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Prosorusiya » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:50 am

Typical Army attitudes on display. Funny, Air Forces world wide have been letting women fly for years, with no ill effects. But then the Army is the oldest and most conservative of all branch types, so it's not really surprising. This is why my military has only one woman in it, and she is a pilot, Nona 'Dash" Radomir.
AH Ossetia (1921-1989)

10th Anniversary: NS User Since 2012

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:51 am

Victoriala wrote:
Soldati senza confini wrote:
Nah, all men in the military are going to die if we let a woman with tits be around them.

It's just boys being boys *nods*

I'm a straight dude and I don't even care about seeing tits on the stree

And I'm not even a soldier


Honestly, I'm a guy too; but when I am with a woman while doing my job, I tend to actually focus on my job, not on the woman.
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Thiefs County
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 108
Founded: Dec 22, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Thiefs County » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:51 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Thiefs County wrote:Er btw I wont be able to talk in a few minutes for about an hour because I'm heading to a meeting currently.

Why do you feel the need to tell us this?

The last time I left an argument I got a shit ton of telegraphs from people telling me not to run from an argument
same

User avatar
Imperial City-States
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8281
Founded: Aug 27, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperial City-States » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:52 am

Allow me to clarify,

I have zero problem with females being in the Military and by extent, Combat Arms.

I do however, have a problem with there being a separate standard for females. There needs to be one universally adopted standard that both genders have to adhere too. Males, typically have greater capacity to become stronger with less effort than what female counter parts would require, hence making them more desirable.

If a female can adhere to the male standard, is capable of conducting all tasks required of her MOS I.E Buddy Carry someone in full kit, and is not a blatant detriment to the unit. Then yes, allow her to do the job. '

One example i can provide,

I am a Forward Observer, long story short meaning i have to carry a bag full of all of the equipment required for my job. Radios, Battery's, LRF's, GPS's in addition to standard Riflemen's kit.

Naked i weigh 200 pounds.
Body Armor with Combat Load (not Assault pack with FO shit) i'm at 250
Full kit with Assault pack i'm at 275.

And that's IF we're not rucking to where we need to go.

Now this may not mean a lot to some of you, but that is a lot of weight (meat, equipment ect.)

If i can't carry my equipment, I.E my FO pack, then i'm worthless. Regardless of how good i may be at my job. No one else is going to carry my shit for me, because they have their own shit to worry about.


Edit: some of you keep joking around about 'how much you lift' but i really don't think you realize exactly how physical the military is. It's no place for the soft and weak regardless of gender.
Last edited by Imperial City-States on Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.broomdces.com/nseconomy/nations.php?nation=Imperial+City-States
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.
"Stand in the ashes of a million dead souls and ask the ghost if honor matters."
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell
"No advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer."
George Orwell

Unapologetically American
U.S Army

User avatar
Esternial
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 54394
Founded: May 09, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Esternial » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:52 am

Victoriala wrote:
Soldati senza confini wrote:
Nah, all men in the military are going to die if we let a woman with tits be around them.

It's just boys being boys *nods*

I'm a straight dude and I don't even care about seeing tits on the stree

And I'm not even a soldier

Frankly I think it's possible some soldiers that have a big problem with tits in the army are just acting overly heterosexual because they're afraid some of their latent homosexuality might ooze out.

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:52 am

Esternial wrote:
Hirota wrote:Adequate supplies are arguably more important than being good in a fight - what good is being really good at fighting if you have no ammo or rations? Sure you could probably use your comerades, but don't they need them too?

To a great extent, 20th century advances have reduced the need for baggage trains, but being able to carry what you need to do your job is pretty damned important

Yeah, and a bunch of people are assuming most women that dare come close to enlisting are by default incapable of carrying that weight on their frail, tit-adjacent shoulders.

As I said before, women that enlist for this kind of duty aren't randomly sampled from the population. Most are likely on the higher end of the spectrum when it comes to fitness and it's highly unlikely they'll be sent out on missions if they're objectively bad soldiers, which takes accounts of all relevant factors, including but not exclusively their weight capacity.

Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Well, in that case, the gunfire should have most of their attention.

Let's look at it this way: the Peshmerga has been kicking IS ass with female soldiers for over a year now. Their armed forces haven't fallen apart yet, have they?

You're missing the important question.

"How much can they lift?"


You're missing the important question too.

The most important question, clearly, is "do they have a dick?"
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22873
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:53 am

Thiefs County wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Why do you feel the need to tell us this?

The last time I left an argument I got a shit ton of telegraphs from people telling me not to run from an argument

I'm having a hard time believing that. I've spent over a year here and have never received such responses. NSG doesn't miss me when I log off, and it won't miss you.
While she had no regrets about throwing the lever to douse her husband's mistress in molten gold, Blanche did feel a pang of conscience for the innocent bystanders whose proximity had caused them to suffer gilt by association.

King of Snark, Real Piece of Work, Metabolizer of Oxygen, Old Man from The East Pacific, by the Malevolence of Her Infinite Terribleness Catherine Gratwick the Sole and True Claimant to the Bears Armed Vacancy, Protector of the Realm

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amjedia, Aperistan, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Lysset, Nu Elysium, Phoeniae, Picairn, Rusrunia, Shrillland, Singaporen Empire, Sphinxatopd, Tungstan, Uiiop, Washington-Columbia

Advertisement

Remove ads