Hiku said:
Aeolus451 said:
I never said I don't every generalize. *shrugs To answer your question, I don't know but I can have an opinion on what I think happens in that situation regardless if it's backed by data or not.
Do I really need to put "I think" or "in my opinion" in the front of every sentence that consists of an opinion you don't like? I try to treat everyone as though they are intelligent enough to figure out when something I'm saying is an opinion or factual. People seem to nit pick more when they can't see the forest for the trees or they are trying to avoid the point.
|
An opinion is "I don't like this movie." Saying "They were allowed in because they were trans, not because they were qualified per se." is not an opinion. That's a statement.
As if you read it somewhere. Which is very possible considering sites like Infowars, reporting on things such as aliens, and Hilary running a child sex cartell in the basement of a pizzeria, have a big following.
I
|
Do you not know the definition of statement? It's definitely not " meant to be taken factually". Here it is for ya to remind you. "A definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing". A statement is still an opinion. Also, you're singling out sentences that were meant to be read with other sentences. It changes their meaning without the rest of it.
My point about my stated opinions still being opinions still stands.
Hiku said:
It's not supposedly done in business. It is. There's many cases of progessives and feminists complaining that businesses don't have enough women or minorities in that workplace or type of job which in turn often forces those employers to hire people from those groups for the sake of diversity. You can't achieve more diversity without picking people with that in mind. Why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that this sort of thing works the same way in the military when the no trans ban is lifted by a progressive? Again I have no proof on the military doing that.
|
I said supposedly because you didn't specify any case with a link. I'm aware that it can happen.
Those women you are refering to may very well have been chosen over men because of their gender in the end, but they (generally) still have to be qualified for the position. It's not that one man has the qualifications, and the woman was a high school dropout, but she has a vagina, so boom, she's in.
It may be that the man was a bit more qualified than the woman. That's possible. But there's no way they would hire someone to deal with life and death situations unless they were qualified. That's just silly to assume.
|
The majority of the roles are not so dramatic as life or death situations. Alot of them are support related but alot of them are vital. I agree that there's no way they would hire someone for a role involving life or death situations if they were drastically unfit for that role or duty in general but if they had problems that would normally get them turned down, they'd might be let in anyway. That's why I brought up them lessing standards during times they need alot of troops or when they really need certain roles to show that they do that sometimes. They could get waivers for things that others might not get for as easily like criminal charges or health issues. There will likely never be any data or studies on this but I would like to see one. Anyway, I I think I'm done with this thread for a bit at least. I've been glued to my laptop, replying to people instead of watching hunter x hunter like I intended. Later, Hiku.
edit. i don't watch stuff like infowars or ancient aliens. 
