Where did Craig go?

I and many other people are in favor of that. Well MMA. Using boxing as an example is real "silly nonsense." I know a few men who wouldn't last a round in the ring with Tyson but if they met in street combat, even if Tyson won he'd be severely damaged.

Using Tyson, or any heavyweight as an example is also the type of extremist approach used when one has no real clear analysis to offer. It's a non-starter. It's as silly as me claiming that because I know a couple women who have beaten other men in MMA bouts that no man could stand against a woman. You also ignore the fact that the average man/ woman is a result of generation raised with a focus on different activities and beliefs about their roles.

To sum up the only silliness here is you reaching for the things that fir your preconceptions and presenting them as if you're having any sort of valid discourse. Oh and BTW Wing Chun wasn't created for women to fight other women.

Saiko said > "I and many other people are in favor of that"

Really ?? You like the idea of women getting a beating do you, black eyes and broken nose, cauliflower ears, breast cancer ? Well call me an out dated old fool but the idea appals me !

Saiko said > " I know a few men who wouldn't last a round in the ring with Tyson but if they met in street combat, even if Tyson won he'd be severely damaged. "

You don't know what you're talking about, Saiko. I'm not interested but I don't know anyone who wasn't trained that would last 20 seconds with him (in his heyday ) .

Saiko said > " Using Tyson, or any heavyweight as an example is also the type of extremist approach used when one has no real clear analysis to offer"

I used Tyson as an example of the best of male boxers .. however presumably there might be a female beast of a boxer and then the two would enter into the ring (if you got your nightmarish way ) You seem to reckon or imply the result would be a draw and I say that's nonsense. On average, men are stronger and more capable of combat than women. It's just a biological fact. It doesn't mean they're braver or superior.

Saiko said > " You also ignore the fact that the average man/ woman is a result of generation raised with a focus on different activities and beliefs about their roles.

Nice.

To sum you up, Saiko you are an aggressive, rude individual. A person with little manners and not a clue how to behave on a forum.
 
Last edited:
That bad, eh ! Hell, I'd better get myself re-educated. May I ask you as I don't disagree with some of the things you say, are you as vociferous when the sensitivities of other groups are tested ? Muslims for instance, their treatment of women and concepts of sexuality and what is permissible and what is absolutely forbidden ?

I'm asking that question from my obvious position as a white middle aged sexist pig from the UK.
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me here.

Sharia law within some Islamic doctrine is reprehensible, IMO. Of course I take issue with some Islamic beliefs. However, if, and it's a big if, a woman is choosing this religion for herself (including wearing whatever head/body dressing they choose) then I have no beef with them choosing something they think is right for themselves. Let us not forget the deep and rampant misogyny that continues to run throughout most of Christianity and Judaism. It starts to get very fuzzy when a female has been born and raised into a certain religion or lifestyle and is not aware of other options, hence her choice isn't really a choice at all. I'll admit, I have no answer for this.

I am very much a live and let live kind of person. As long as your actions are not harming another individual or violating their civil rights, then do as you must. You can believe whatever you want. But when those beliefs cross the boundary between thought and action, then we've got a problem.
 
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me here.

Sharia law within some Islamic doctrine is reprehensible, IMO. Of course I take issue with some Islamic beliefs. However, if, and it's a big if, a woman is choosing this religion for herself (including wearing whatever head/body dressing they choose) then I have no beef with them choosing something they think is right for themselves. Let us not forget the deep and rampant misogyny that continues to run throughout most of Christianity and Judaism. It starts to get very fuzzy when a female has been born and raised into a certain religion or lifestyle and is not aware of other options, hence her choice isn't really a choice at all. I'll admit, I have no answer for this.

I am very much a live and let live kind of person. As long as your actions are not harming another individual or violating their civil rights, then do as you must. You can believe whatever you want. But when those beliefs cross the boundary between thought and action, then we've got a problem.

Thanks, Vault. I was really asking you would you be prepared to challenge Muslim sensitivities out right like you've tackled me (which you are fully entitled to) . In the UK many people are afraid to
 
Good point. May I ask you, K9 why it is so important that "women" enjoy the equal right to get shot to pieces. Many of us on here believe in an afterlife and that we come back again and again, if "women" are not happy with what being a woman entails, why not just come back as a man next time ?
Number one, an afterlife is a belief at this point, not a guarantee, so I as well as most do our best to live this life fully. There are no guarantees that there are any "do overs".

Number two, yes, women do have the right to get blown to peices, if that is a risk they are willing to take by choosing to be a member of the military.

As far as the draft is concerned, yes, equality means just that. We can't pick and choose which situations we want equality to apply and others we want special treatment. However, someone needs to stay home and keep the country running/take care of family. I suppose it would then be up to each individual family to decide which partner would go.
 
Number one, an afterlife is a belief at this point, not a guarantee, so I as well as most do our best to live this life fully. There are no guarantees that there are any "do overs".

Number two, yes, women do have the right to get blown to peices, if that is a risk they are willing to take by choosing to be a member of the military.

As far as the draft is concerned, yes, equality means just that. We can't pick and choose which situations we want equality to apply and others we want special treatment. However, someone needs to stay home and keep the country running/take care of family. I suppose it would then be up to each individual family to decide which partner would go.

Vault said > "Number two, yes, women do have the right to get blown to pieces,"

And that's emancipation ?
 
Vault said > " I suppose it would then be up to each individual family to decide which partner would go."

Woah there ! You surely don't mean that it would be acceptable for the man to stay at home and the woman to go to war ? Is that how far you want to take this ?
 
Thanks, Vault. I was really asking you would you be prepared to challenge Muslim sensitivities out right like you've tackled me (which you are fully entitled to) . In the UK many people are afraid to
Of course I would. I see no reason why any one group should get a pass on acting inhumane.

Honestly, I think the whole violence in the name of Islam is a combination of real sick individuals who desire to do horrible things in the name of their religion, false flag attacks by various governments to suit an agenda and is to a great extent overblown by the MSM, again, to push an agenda in cahoots with government.

Muslims are the boogeymen of today. I think one would have to be naive as hell to think that it's as black and white as the media/gov. would have you believe. Are they all "peace loving" people? Of course not. But I challenge you to find one single religion, culture, society or group that is or ever has been. There are terrible people everywhere that use and abuse whatever system is at their disposal. But by no means do I believe that the majority of any one religion are anything other than peaceful individuals who just want to live a decent life, provide for themselves and their family, and to be left alone to their own beliefs whatever those may be.
 
Vault said > " I suppose it would then be up to each individual family to decide which partner would go."

Woah there ! You surely don't mean that it would be acceptable for the man to stay at home and the woman to go to war ? Is that how far you want to take this ?
Of course, why not? I've known families where the father was the caretaker/homemaker, and it worked splendidly (except for the occasional asshat that just couldn't understand why a man would do a "woman's job").
 
Of course I would. I see no reason why any one group should get a pass on acting inhumane.

Honestly, I think the whole violence in the name of Islam is a combination of real sick individuals who desire to do horrible things in the name of their religion, false flag attacks by various governments to suit an agenda and is to a great extent overblown by the MSM, again, to push an agenda in cahoots with government.

Muslims are the boogeymen of today. I think one would have to be naive as hell to think that it's as black and white as the media/gov. would have you believe. Are they all "peace loving" people? Of course not. But I challenge you to find one single religion, culture, society or group that is or ever has been. There are terrible people everywhere that use and abuse whatever system is at their disposal. But by no means do I believe that the majority of any one religion are anything other than peaceful individuals who just want to live a decent life, provide for themselves and their family, and to be left alone to their own beliefs whatever those may be.

I'm not at all categorizing Muslims (as the bogeymen) but their totalitarian doctrine (cannot be changed) doesn't allow young women like you the freedom/options and beliefs you have now and never would....ever.
 
Last edited:
Vault said > "Number two, yes, women do have the right to get blown to pieces,"

And that's emancipation ?
No, it's the reality of the human condition. Humans have been blowing up, slicing and dicing, shooting, bludgeoning and strangling each other since they figured out how to use their opposable thumbs. Women are often victims in circumstances of war and otherwise. At the very least, choosing to go to the front line knowing there is a chance of death would be her choice.

So death and dismemberment is ok, just so long as the woman is unaware that the reaper is knocking on her door?
 
Both those things can be correct - to you, exposing a hoax justified your attack. Just like to me, the potential harm to someone who seemed vulnerable justified my attack. In reality, we all do stuff that from our perspective is justified, but from another's perspective might deserve a beat down. Maybe the trite aphorism of choice should recognize that symmetry - if you can't take it, don't dish it out?

Linda

I made it clear from the get go that his post contrasted with his historical posture. And I did not call "BS", despite the obvious hook, until the original source of the supposed personal experience was noted. You were not following the narrative or simply felt compelled to protect one of your camp. Regardless of the motivation, spewing aggressive demagogue was your choice and you have to deal with it.
 
Of course, why not? I've known families where the father was the caretaker/homemaker, and it worked splendidly (except for the occasional asshat that just couldn't understand why a man would do a "woman's job").

Once again, you would think it was all hunky dory and normal for a man to stand on the train platform waving his wife off to war ? I'm not having that, Vault :) you're killing me

If that's what the big idea is then I say baloney
 
Last edited:
They are there, whether or not you acknowledge it. I personally don't think anyone deserves to be on the front line in battle.

Yes, some countries but not others. I was watching a programme last night about the Fire houses of New York. Are they going the same way ? Don't think so
 
Last edited:
Do I want to jump into this one? Its pretty sticky... Oh why not...

Sure, some women can hold their own and even surpass some men in physical strength and combat. But when dealing with a sizable force like the military we have to consider averages. The average male physical performance will be above the average female physical performance. But as has already been pointed out, most combat in today's technological era is not primarily about physical strength. For this reason, arguments about physical capabilities are less significant although not entirely without merit. If physical standards are lowered solely for the purpose of including more women, that's a problem. (not sure if that is happening or not)

One objection I have to women in combat is that adding a few fit young women to a platoon of testosterone charged young men changes the group dynamic in potentially distracting and negative ways that could reduce the unity and efficacy of the unit. Another issue, as I understand it, is that pregnancy and rape are a fairly serious issue that is somewhat covered up - especially on carriers.

Another objection is that I think instincts and some form of genetic memory play a role in our aptitudes. Men are instinctively more aggressive and combat oriented probably due to thousands of generations of men going out on the hunt or out on patrol while the women took care of the children in the village. We can't ignore the role of instincts and genetic memory. We don't expect ducks to return home like pigeons or bird dogs to guard or guard dogs to point because it hasn't been bred into their instincts. Men and women have instincts too. These can be overcome, but at some cost.

Finally, aggressiveness, toughness, crass humor, brotherhood, harshness, etc. are all traditionally masculine qualities that are evoked in the harsh military life and some of these qualities add potency, cohesion, and effectiveness to a military unit. Interjecting women into this environment means women must adopt traditionally masculine traits to fit in and/or that masculine traits must be diminished and if these masculine traits do add to the efficacy of the military unit then this diminishes the effectiveness of the unit. Gentleness, compassion, tenderness, subtleness, sensitivity, etc. are more feminine traits and I think it is obvious that interjecting these into a unit that is intended to kill and destroy might reduce its effectiveness so women must deny any such traits that exist within themselves due to instinct or upbringing. Masculinity and femininity express strengths and weaknesses in different ways. Androgyny inhibits the strengths of both. In my opinion a society that promotes masculinity and femininity (though not in an oppressive way) is superior to an androgynous one.

I have nothing against women like K9 who join the military and those want to fight. I have great admiration for anyone who can endure the training and discipline and hardships of the military and who has a desire to serve their society in a dangerous capacity. I was in the PLC program headed off to Marine Corps OCS at 18 but my arthritic hips inhibited me at the last minute. So kudos to K9 and the other brave soldiers like her, but if I were tasked with creating, training, and commanding a combat force I would choose men only - not because I'm misogynistic or want to oppress women, but because I think it would make my job easier.
 
Last edited:
I were tasked with creating, training, and commanding a combat force I would choose men only - not because I'm misogynistic or want to oppress women, but because I think it would make my job easier.

Having a homogenous group of people is always "easier". If would be easier to have all white men who speak the same language and wear the same size of clothing, but clearly that isn't practical, especially in a military that does not use conscription. You have to deal with individuals from various ethnic and religious backgrounds. Not everyone speaks English. NATO missions mean dealing with working with people from a variety of nationalities, and even different rules of engagement for each nationality involved.

I personally think that allowing for that kind of variety is not just a challenge, but also a strength.

I can remember when being gay was legalized in my country's military. People said the military couldn't adapt to that, which was silly, because there have always been gay people in the military. The only difference was that they wouldn't go to jail or be discharged from service for admitting it any more.

It's not a life that I would recommend. I joined to pay for my education, as many people do. I'd like to see a world where soldiers were not needed.

EDIT: In the US, women are now becoming Rangers. I thought Vault 313 might enjoy knowing that.
http://www.army.mil/article/154286/First_women_graduate_Ranger_School/
 
Last edited:
I made it clear from the get go that his post contrasted with his historical posture. And I did not call "BS", despite the obvious hook, until the original source of the supposed personal experience was noted. You were not following the narrative or simply felt compelled to protect one of your camp. Regardless of the motivation, spewing aggressive demagogue was your choice and you have to deal with it.

It might be helpful to take a step back and analyse the different possibilities in this situation and how that should affect our evaluation of what kind of reaping is appropriate, if any.

We have:

  • B makes comments about JE and his and his families reasons for seeing JE and their reactions. Bill may be:
    • In good faith, and accounting the story as accurately as he remembers it.
    • In good faith, but incorrectly interpreting JE's comments
    • In bad faith, and having concocted the whole thing to slander JE.
  • E decides B is in bad faith and calls B out on it. E may be:
    • In good faith, and correctly adduced B's lies.
    • In good faith, but incorrectly in believing B lied.
    • In bad faith, just attacking B because JE is in his camp
  • F believes E has potentially been unfair to B and calls him out. F may be:
    • In good faith, and correctly assessed E as hasty in judgement.
    • In good faith, but incorrect in how strong E's evidence and arguments against B are.
    • In bad faith, just standing up for B because she perceives him to be in her camp.
So how should we approach a situation like this, where it is possible where all three are in good faith, bad faith, or a mixture of both? How certain should we be before deciding that reaping is in order? Which do we value more: ensuring unjust people get their due, even if it means more good faith people are unjustly attacked? Or ensuring that good faith people are not unjustly attacked, even if it means some bad faith people get off scott free? Which side should we err on? How much consideration should we give to the fact that our opinion may be mistaken? How does it change our reaction if someone is deliberately unjust, or acting in good faith but wrong?

I think these are the kinds of questions that we owe it to ourselves and others to ask ourselves before delivering any reaping.
 
I made it clear from the get go that his post contrasted with his historical posture. And I did not call "BS", despite the obvious hook, until the original source of the supposed personal experience was noted. You were not following the narrative or simply felt compelled to protect one of your camp. Regardless of the motivation, spewing aggressive demagogue was your choice and you have to deal with it.

This is what I said,

"I'm appalled by the behavior of E. Flowers and Craig Weiler towards Bill. As far as you know, you've just shit all over someone who is feeling hurt and vulnerable.

A decent human would keep their suspicions to themselves under these circumstances. The chance that someone might be fooled does not justify the harm of aggravating someone's depression."

It's pretty clear that I would have to believe that he was not in my camp, i.e. that he was a believer who was feeling let down, in order for me to have been concerned enough to chastise you. None of this has anything to do with skepticism or belief.

Like I said, I get that I have to reap what I sow. What I am pointing out is that you were reaping what you had sowed, so why get upset? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Linda
 
Good, so we have established that you ignored how I directly mention Bill's previous MO before randomly "chastising" me. Can we now get to the part where you acknowledge that this medium, legit or not, was being slandered and had no way to know it?
 
Back
Top