- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:06 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Also thousands of years of history and common sense.
None of the three proves what he asserted.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:10 pm to Argonaut
quote:
There are no longer jobs that are inherently closed to someone based on their sex.
oh the old "I am woman hear me roar" argument.
Let me ask you, which makes a better kindergarten/early elementary teacher, a man or a woman? And careful there are actual studies out there.
The answer is women. Women are better teachers of early age children than men, and thus it is better of the CHILDREN to hire women and so I don't really care if a man wants the job , I'm concerned with what's best for the children.
Same principle here, what's best for the military , women in JSOC, or not? Studies prove the answer is not. So that should be the end of the discussion.
And in fact, by wanting to be in a position that they know it is not in the best interest of the military for them to be in, these women are PROVING that they don't belong right off the bat, because they are putting themselves before team , which is the number one no no is the military in general and special operations specifically.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:12 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Did you make an argument yet or just avoid the real topic and call people names for the last 5 pages?
Her arguments can be summed up thusly.
1. It's going to happen, so there.
2. Your argument pointing out the SUBSTANTIALLY lower likelihood of even selected females to pass doesn't matter because you don't really care about that.
3. Emotion - "reasons".
There's no sound logical argument for having women take up slots for such schools. The argument for having them do so would be just as appropriate if applied to substandard men. "We should let them because don't they deserve to try!!!"
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:15 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
oh the old "I am woman hear me roar" argument.
No. The old, "it's 2017" argument.
quote:
Let me ask you, which makes a better kindergarten/early elementary teacher, a man or a woman? And careful there are actual studies out there.
The answer is women. Women are better teachers of early age children than men, and thus it is better of the CHILDREN to hire women and so I don't really care if a man wants the job , I'm concerned with what's best for the children.
Depends on the man and the woman.
This argument falls on its face right there.
quote:
Same principle here, what's best for the military , women in JSOC, or not? Studies prove the answer is not. So that should be the end of the discussion.
And in fact, by wanting to be in a position that they know it is not in the best interest of the military for them to be in, these women are PROVING that they don't belong right off the bat, because they are putting themselves before team , which is the number one no no is the military in general and special operations specifically.
You guys sure are loose with how you use the word "prove."
Those studies don't prove anything really, at least not on this particular topic.
Go back to the Marine Corps study.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:16 pm to Argonaut
quote:
Depends on the man and the woman. This argument falls on its face right there.
The Argonaut approach.
Just declare shite false with no rebuttal cause, well, she's a girl and she doesn't need a reason.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:17 pm to Argonaut
quote:
You guys sure are loose with how you use the word "prove."
Well, I mean.........your "proof" is to holler "nuh uh" at all data.
So, there's that.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:17 pm to Argonaut
The irony in all of this is the fact your disposition in this thread serves as evidence as to why women have no business in the Navy SEALS.
You're too emotional.
You're too emotional.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:18 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
1. It's going to happen, so there.
It's already happening.
quote:
2. Your argument pointing out the SUBSTANTIALLY lower likelihood of even selected females to pass doesn't matter because you don't really care about that.
It doesn't matter because selection isn't about rates and statistics. You should know that, expert on "selection" that you are.
quote:
3. Emotion - "reasons".
The Air Force comm guy has been the most emotional poster in this thread. I'm not even top 25 in here.
quote:
There's no sound logical argument for having women take up slots for such schools.
The standards to get in to these schools exist for a reason. If they meet those, there's no sound or logical reason to keep them out.
quote:
The argument for having them do so would be just as appropriate if applied to substandard men.
Substandard men are already filtered out, and it isn't based on their sex. Apply the same standard. Easy day.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:19 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Well, I mean.........your "proof" is to holler "nuh uh" at all data.
So, there's that.
The closest anyone has provided me to data has been a four-page summary of the Marine Corps study.
So, there's that.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:20 pm to Argonaut
quote:
The standards to get in to these schools exist for a reason. If they meet those, there's no sound or logical reason to keep them out.
That's the exact argument used to end gender segregation in sports. And I'm all for it.
Yall want equality? You can have it. Say goodbye to a of your sports.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:21 pm to Argonaut
quote:
The closest anyone has provided me to data has been a four-page summary of the Marine Corps study.
Oh. That's right. I forgot.
You're still pretending that the difference between women and men in physical performance is an unknown.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:21 pm to Argonaut
quote:Would be cool if they applied the same standard on regular PT tests and promotions. Then we'd never have to worry about women making it past E-2.
Apply the same standard.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:21 pm to Tiguar
quote:
The irony in all of this is the fact your disposition in this thread serves as evidence as to why women have no business in the Navy SEALS.
You're too emotional.
The Air Force kid has been the most emotional one in the thread. He made it through "selection." Seems emotion has little to do with success in that regard.
Although he was injured in training later on. Maybe you do have a point here...
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:22 pm to Breesus
quote:
That's the exact argument used to end gender segregation in sports. And I'm all for it.
Yall want equality? You can have it. Say goodbye to a of your sports.
I'm fine with that. Women's sports are generally boring to watch and are only kept afloat by revenue from men's sports.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:22 pm to Tiguar
she is a female octopussy with many tentacles of complete contrarian bullshite. I wonder if Cuckeye will join her?
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:23 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
You're still pretending that the difference between women and men in physical performance is an unknown.
You're still pretending that selection is about bulk intake.
You're the expert, though.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:23 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Would be cool if they applied the same standard on regular PT tests and promotions.
That right there should be the argument.
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:24 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
pretending that the difference between women and men in physical performance is an unknown.
I love people like that.
I bet they'd love to watch Mike Tyson in his prime box a woman.
Or Anderson Silva beat the shite out of Rhonda Rousey.
Or LeBron James play one game in the WNBA
Posted on 7/24/17 at 12:24 pm to Argonaut
quote:It's like you don't even read.
It doesn't matter because selection isn't about rates and statistics. You should know that, expert on "selection" that you are.
quote:It's a MINIMUM standard. The "sound or logical reason" is that if someone else ALSO meets the minimum standard and actually performed BETTER than you, they should get in ahead of you. Ya know. Logic.
The standards to get in to these schools exist for a reason. If they meet those, there's no sound or logical reason to keep them out.
quote:A LOT of men meet the minimum standards and aren't selected. And, they all would have a higher likelihood of success than any of the females that went in ahead of them.
Substandard men are already filtered out, and it isn't based on their sex. Apply the same standard. Easy day.
In this case, I used the term "substandard" because they weren't as good as the men SELECTED.
You do know what that a "minimum standard" doesn't mean you HAVE to take people that ONLY meet the minimum...........right?
Page 28 of 38
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News