Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

10 (76.9%)

No

3 (23.1%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Neonivek]

This thread is circling the drain, and needs locking OP, before people start saying really stupid shit and end up muted or banned. A reasonable and fair consensus was reaced on the first few pages. Most of the rest of the posts (some of mine included) are pretty much redundant and repeating the same bad arguments over and over. So, yea, please take this out back and shoot it.

Given that I am trying to make sense of things with absolutely no information... this is going well

For example I don't know what the test is based off of, how well women generally do, what parts of the test they fail, how much work it takes for a female cadet to succeed, how much value there is to more soldiers.

The reason this thing is circling the drain is because you have no choice but to talk out of your butt.

So I am testing out every assumption possible.

For example what determines the 40kg a soldier must carry? What is that 40kg based off of?

you don't know what the hell you are talking about so it makes sense to you

Psh, no. But conversations are the best time to test out assumptions and see if someone out there knows more then you.

However given that you have presented absolutely no information yourself quote marine I have to ignore you.

The fact of the matter is that I've read everything people have put and I still don't know a single thing about what this conversation is about.

[weenog]

If you genuinely believe that diversity of input is more important than quality and integrity of output, all I can say is I disagree, but some earlier statements make more sense in context of that perspective.

[tahujdt]

Shaping up and keeping on topic:
Really, if you think that requiring women to pass the same test as men is wrong, then you know next to nothing about warfare.

[Vector]

Okay, then.  We don't learn about any particular mathematician's life, because that's considered unimportant (with the exception of my history of math class, where we learned a little about some 40 mathematicians, none of whom were female, some of whom were Arab, Egyptian, Chinese, whatever).  I'm talking about learning their contributions, or, you know, that they existed at all.

What about Muhommad al-Khawrmzi (probably spelled that wrong), who discovered much about quadratics and gave algebra its name?

Gauss, Newton, Thales, L'hopital, Lagrange, Jordan, Riemann, Euclid, Euler, Leibniz, Descartes, Stieltjes, Sylow, Poincare, Kuratowski, Godel, Erdos, Cauchy, Liouville, Stone, Weierstrass, Abel, Dedekind, Kronecker, Galois, Artin, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Diophantus, Fibonacci, Fermat, Dirichlet, Hilbert, Turing, Stokes, Fourier, Lebesgue, Darboux, deRham, Sard, Klein, Ibn Al-Haytham, Al-Khwarizmi, Hookes, and I'm just getting started.

If you genuinely believe that diversity of input is more important than quality and integrity of output, all I can say is I disagree, but some earlier statements make more sense in context of that perspective.

I genuinely believe that diversity of input improves diversity of output, which is invaluable.

There's really no way around teaching Maxwell's equations.

Let's whine about not learning every detail about him!

Excuse me, are you saying that I'm whining?

[Neonivek]

Shaping up and keeping on topic:
Really, if you think that requiring women to pass the same test as men is wrong, then you know next to nothing about warfare.

I know that 4 good and 4 Not as good soldiers easily beats 4 good soldiers.

Them military is certainly not in the position where it has as many soldiers as it needs.

Mind you where I live that may be why women integration in the army has been going smoother. We are desperate for soldiers to the extent where we will even pay for schooling.

Now if you are worried that the 4 not as good soldiers are going to be in the way, then make them a specific platoon and use them in situations where their detriment does not get in the way.

I just beat your army.

[tahujdt]

Excuse me, are you saying that I'm whining?

Just a tad, yeah. You are making a good argument, though, so I don't really care.

[pisskop]

Shaping up and keeping on topic:
Really, if you think that requiring women to pass the same test as men is wrong, then you know next to nothing about warfare.

I know that 4 good and 4 Not as good soldiers easily beats 4 good soldiers.

From a cost standpoint I'd have to take the former.  And if I assume we are talking about the American military than cost is always a hot button.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

And as someone who spent a long time in a university physics department as an undergraduate and postgraduate, I have to say that what Vector is saying sounds about normal to me. We had substantial numbers of women as both students and professors but they were still dumped on and treated substantially differently (to their detriment) than the men.

All it takes is a sprinkle of subconscious misogyny to put the blinds on to this, though. Example, this topic.

I think this needs to be closed. We're in dangerous territory.

[Neonivek]

Shaping up and keeping on topic:
Really, if you think that requiring women to pass the same test as men is wrong, then you know next to nothing about warfare.

I know that 4 good and 4 Not as good soldiers easily beats 4 good soldiers.

From a cost standpoint I'd have to take the former.  And if I assume we are talking about the American military than cost is always a hot button.

A soldier costs about 100,000 thousand dollars to field.

For a soldier who is 100% as skilled but only 72% Athletic, I think I've used the cost.

[Scoops Novel]

Be civil, and don't instantly dismiss others points, or kill the thread.

tahujdt, I don't want any more of this.

Lets argue about how life is discriminating against men because women live longer on average. We must tell life that he must treat everyone equally!

Don't make me regret that compliment, but I'm having less hope.

Also! I'm going to suggest that sarcasm notes are used from now on. Also! Vector was talking about a distinct lack of opportunity, in comparison to others. It would be better to have a even keel, yes? Keep going on about it and i will have this thread locked.

[Loud Whispers]

Okay, then.  We don't learn about any particular mathematician's life, because that's considered unimportant (with the exception of my history of math class, where we learned a little about some 40 mathematicians, none of whom were female

Must be discrimination then.

>_>
<_<

Shaping up and keeping on topic:
Really, if you think that requiring women to pass the same test as men is wrong, then you know next to nothing about warfare.

I know that 4 good and 4 Not as good soldiers easily beats 4 good soldiers.

Only in China's ridiculously large ground people's army, where quantity is the assurance of quality.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The argument is settled. Raise standards for girl scouts.

[palsch]

If you genuinely believe that diversity of input is more important than quality and integrity of output, all I can say is I disagree, but some earlier statements make more sense in context of that perspective.

Sometimes, diversity is important to quality and integrity of output.

In certain areas there is an inherent value to having a diverse population for various reasons. When you are talking about police then you need people who will be trusted in otherwise distrustful and insular communities, which usually means members of that community. When talking about colleges it's well founded (just first two links I grabbed, going deeper will put me way behind in the reply flood right now) that minority students perform better (and frankly apply more often) when there are already a critical mass of people 'like them', and that everyone performs better when there is a diverse community surrounding them.

[Scoops Novel]

Okay, then.  We don't learn about any particular mathematician's life, because that's considered unimportant (with the exception of my history of math class, where we learned a little about some 40 mathematicians, none of whom were female

Must be discrimination then.

>_>
<_<

Shaping up and keeping on topic:
Really, if you think that requiring women to pass the same test as men is wrong, then you know next to nothing about warfare.

I know that 4 good and 4 Not as good soldiers easily beats 4 good soldiers.

Only in China's ridiculously large ground people's army, where quantity is the assurance of quality.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The argument is settled. Raise standards for girl scouts.

Given the context Loud Whispers? You're going with that as your armor-piercing question?

[10ebbor10]

Shaping up and keeping on topic:
Really, if you think that requiring women to pass the same test as men is wrong, then you know next to nothing about warfare.

I know that 4 good and 4 Not as good soldiers easily beats 4 good soldiers.

Them military is certainly not in the position where it has as many soldiers as it needs.

Mind you where I live that may be why women integration in the army has been going smoother. We are desperate for soldiers to the extent where we will even pay for schooling.

1) Actually nope. Stealth plays a large part in tactics. A single incompetent person can get the entire group killed. This isn't the 1800, when everyone stood in a line and shot the enemy at 30 meters distance.

The US military certainly is. They focus on high tech warfare, not zergling solutions. IIRC, the US military budget is 40% of the military budgets of all countries in the world.

Anyway, why do we even need humans in armies. Automated drones are much easier.


edit: ninja'd *6

[Leafsnail]

Must be discrimination then.

>_>
<_<

It is probably due to historical discrimination.  But there's not much we can do now about the fact that most important theories with names attached to them have male names attached to them.