By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Your ethical views of woman & LGBT in US and allied military.

Normchacho on 24 January 2017
John2290 said:
Cobretti2 said:
how is this even an issue? as long as they pass the minimum bar set for whatever roll then that should be it.

With that attiude you aren't going to be winning any wars and I'd love to see you be drafted and end up along side someone who got in on the minimum ammount of effort. If a global war breaks out...I mean, I want our militaries (The western allies as is now) to be the best it can be, If I'm going to get drafted as a 26 year old ...who will be sent to "dig in" and seen as expendable I'd want no weak links around me, nor do I want to have to go against and combat a stressed mentally fatigued soldier who gets a rapey vibe for the women. There is also the possiblity of lovin going on within units and this poses the problem of greater priorities because when in love a court marshel or on site execution doesn't seem so bad when your lover is in danger. This would be a shambles of an army the ratio from Men to women were anywhere close. 

You do realize that the US is far from the only country to allow women in combat roles, correct? Also, what he means by the "minimum standard" is the standard that men currently have to pass to be in a combat role.

This is a really silly debate to be quite honest.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Around the Network
JRPGfan on 24 January 2017

I dont even see how it matters in anyway.

These people want to serve your country? fight for your rights? your geopolitical influence around the world, they re willing to put their lives on the line, to do what "probably" needs doing.

And people care what sexuality they have? why?

 

Same is true for women.  If they want to serve let them.

Doesnt require much strength to pull a trigger. The smaller you are, the less of a target you are (big tall soldiers arnt a good thing, in todays wars).



barneystinson69 on 24 January 2017

I'm right leaning, but I think this fight against it is rediculous. If you want to be gay; or lesbian; or bisexual, then let a person be that and just stop this silly discusssion. Every party in Canada (including the Conservative party) supports gay marriage, so what exactly is the issue in America?



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

Torillian on 24 January 2017
John2290 said:
Puppyroach said:

But you aren´t talkning about people meeting the minimum bar, you are talkning about people that are unqualified to be in the military. Meeeting the minimum bar means that you are qualified, so what´s the issue? And why do you have an issue if love occurs between soldiers? They l have to take the consequences´, and I assume most in the military will be professional. If they can´t be professional, then it´s not about the issue of women in the military, it´s rather the issue of soldiers not being competent anough for the job.

No, it is an issue of putting penis and vagina, all the pheramones and hormones and all that entails, beside each other in battle. Have you ever been in love? If you have you know you make rash decisions, your world view changes, you litterally can not stop fucking, five minutes pass alone and you can't get her out of your head. I can't imagine what effect this would have on the battlefield but I'm sure of one thing, it creates a situation where you are given an order but that love of yours takes priority...in the military everything hinges on the ability and training to take orders. And then there is the salty fuckers who can't get legit pussy and feel the need to take it for themselves.

Does it really make sense that we should bar women from all combat roles because some guys would want to fuck them?  This sounds very similar to muslim women being forced to cover up in some countries because otherwise they'll be too enticing to guys.  Perhaps those guys should learn to do their duty while keeping their boner down.  They'll figure it out, it's honestly a tad insulting to the men that you think they can't possibly use their heads to think instead of their dicks.  



...

WolfpackN64 on 24 January 2017

We have female paracommandos in the Belgian military since the 1970's and it's one of the best elite military units in the world. Any fit person with the right training can be in the military, but the paracommando training in Belgium is extremely tough, so yes. Women and trans can perfectly join.
And bullying in the military should be acted against. Bullies are a weak link themselves.



Around the Network
Flilix on 24 January 2017

Any women that is fit for a military job should be allowed to join the army. Yes, a lot of women aren't physically or mentally strong enough, but a lot of men aren't either.



Insidb on 24 January 2017

Equal work. Equal pay.

Do the same work; get the same pay.



irstupid on 24 January 2017
JRPGfan said:

I dont even see how it matters in anyway.

These people want to serve your country? fight for your rights? your geopolitical influence around the world, they re willing to put their lives on the line, to do what "probably" needs doing.

And people care what sexuality they have? why?

 

Same is true for women.  If they want to serve let them.

Doesnt require much strength to pull a trigger. The smaller you are, the less of a target you are (big tall soldiers arnt a good thing, in todays wars).

Agree but to only a small extent. You lose me on teh strength to pull a trigger.

If the argument is just about that, then sure. But many times I'm seeing arguments for women being denied special forces positions that are the best of the best. This is where I don't want qualifications to be cut to be "fair" or somethign to anyone. If a requirement is carryign a 250lb pack a mile in 15 minutes or less, then that should remain so. Is that unfair to a 120lb female compared to a 200lb man? Yes it sure is. But let me tell you if you were in those forces and you got injured and needed to be carried to safety. Do you not want someone who can do that?

Women will be at a natural disadvantage in those physical regards. Some could do it, sure. But we shoudl never reduce the strict guidlines to make it more "fair". Our special forces shoudl be hte best of the best. Whether that best is a male or female.



Puppyroach on 24 January 2017
John2290 said:
Puppyroach said:

But you aren´t talkning about people meeting the minimum bar, you are talkning about people that are unqualified to be in the military. Meeeting the minimum bar means that you are qualified, so what´s the issue? And why do you have an issue if love occurs between soldiers? They l have to take the consequences´, and I assume most in the military will be professional. If they can´t be professional, then it´s not about the issue of women in the military, it´s rather the issue of soldiers not being competent anough for the job.

No, it is an issue of putting penis and vagina, all the pheramones and hormones and all that entails, beside each other in battle. Have you ever been in love? If you have you know you make rash decisions, your world view changes, you litterally can not stop fucking, five minutes pass alone and you can't get her out of your head. I can't imagine what effect this would have on the battlefield but I'm sure of one thing, it creates a situation where you are given an order but that love of yours takes priority...in the military everything hinges on the ability and training to take orders. And then there is the salty fuckers who can't get legit pussy and feel the need to take it for themselves.

And why would we limit a womans equal right to serve because some guys are to unprofessional to separate private and public life? Any father that serves is likely able to do it when struggling with being away from their family , then I expect any horny guy to be able do it as well, or look for another service. Limiting a womans rights because of men sounds more like an oppressive fundamentalist state than a democratic, open society.



Torillian on 24 January 2017
John2290 said:
Torillian said:

Does it really make sense that we should bar women from all combat roles because some guys would want to fuck them?  This sounds very similar to muslim women being forced to cover up in some countries because otherwise they'll be too enticing to guys.  Perhaps those guys should learn to do their duty while keeping their boner down.  They'll figure it out, it's honestly a tad insulting to the men that you think they can't possibly use their heads to think instead of their dicks.  

Well, lets flip it. How about a 90 percent female army and 8 percent male 2 percent other (Just to be PC) With all that, as Trump would put it "blood coming out wherever..." at the same time would you consider it fair? 

You've lost me.  Everyone here is saying that if a woman can meet the requirements in place right now for men they should be able to fill the same role as a man.  Are you saying that women shouldn't be a large part of the military because they have periods?



...