I thought it was just the virgins? :idunno:
toldailytopic: GI Jane: Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the armed
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I thought it was just the virgins? :idunno:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Didn't they KILL everyone EXCEPT the FEMALE virgins such that they 'then impregnate the females so as to spread their own seed'?
:think:
Yeah, ya have to love that book of morals to which christians so dearly cling.
:drum:
Back on topic . . .
YES, women SHOULD be allowed to serve in combat roles.
Did three people actually skim the whole thread and run for the "lion and lioness" bit to try and show that human women are physically capable as men?
Feminists and atheists.. you do it to yourselves, really. :chuckle:
Just because we have electrolyzed water and accurate weapons doesn't mean one that a women is going to perform as well as a man in battle. Just because there a re handful in the world that can doesn't make your argument worth anything. In fact, your whole argument is just a misrepresentation of the facts. So go on and feed that cause and when there is a draft, all the fragile women out there who couldn't do a pushup off a wall standing up can hate you for it.
Feminists and atheists.. you do it to yourselves, really. :chuckle:
Just because we have electrolyzed water and accurate weapons doesn't mean one that a women is going to perform as well as a man in battle. Just because there a re handful in the world that can doesn't make your argument worth anything. In fact, your whole argument is just a misrepresentation of the facts. So go on and feed that cause and when there is a draft, all the fragile women out there who couldn't do a pushup off a wall standing up can hate you for it.
Maybe the World Wildlife Foundation will sue me like they did the World Wrestling Federation :devil:
Back on topic: If it works for the Israelis*, why wouldn't it work here?
The implicit understanding seems to be that American men are ultimately animals and wouldn't be able to control themselves.
* Or anywhere else.
I guess the more polite, silent adverser of society is better :idunno:
Now instead of people openly being deviant, they can hide it and blame others. You atheists fail at understanding biblical morals.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
WHAT morals? The bible is the most blatantly IMMORAL book I've EVER read :doh:.
As long as you refuse to understand it, it will remain that way to you. That really is the simplicity of it. You want to deny what you refuse to acknowledge, and it makes you a hypocrite to your own convictions that speak upon others being closed-minded or blind.
There's no good way to spin control OT-condoned rape.
Where in the OT is rape 'condoned'?
If you want to continue this let's start another thread, the subject on this one is interesting.:cheers:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
It would seem that Gruj is in a mood to derail yet another thread without penalty . . . :think: . . . :idunno:.
What does biblical morality have to do with women fighting in a combat role in a nation's military?
You all are the ones presenting posts which have nothing to do with the thread. I am merely speaking on them. 'You all', as in you atheists. Just to be specific. This has happened before, I know you recall SH :chuckle:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
ahem . . .
One response is "speaking on them". Continuing the argument is "derailing the thread".
:think: :liberals:What does your latest rant here have to do with women fighting in a combat role in a nation's military? :idunno:
Yeah.. see the thread title?
I don't know, what does the OT allegedly 'condoning rape' have to do with 18 year old little sisters patrolling Iraq?
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . for which I went for "back on track". You on the other hand went for . . . "further afield".
Well, you inadvertently brought it up by trying to defend the OT's condoning of it in p149.
Would you care to get back on topic?
The big argument for women wanting to join the military is not about patriotism, but rather receiving the perks of military service.
This is fine, on the surface anyways. Most people do not join the military for patriotic reasons. However, who exactly is on the front line? Who exactly dies most of the time? Male soldiers.
So where women want equality in the military, they don't expect to actually be handled in this manner. Heck, the standards of a female soldier are even watered down all the way to basic training. Seriously, it speaks for itself.
Therefore, the military should be a man's privilege before a women's.
This is fine, on the surface anyways. Most people do not join the military for patriotic reasons. However, who exactly is on the front line? Who exactly dies most of the time? Male soldiers.
So where women want equality in the military, they don't expect to actually be handled in this manner. Heck, the standards of a female soldier are even watered down all the way to basic training. Seriously, it speaks for itself.
Therefore, the military should be a man's privilege before a women's.
Yes, the lovely perks.
Did you serve? Do you know anyone who did? Just curious.
...because they're the only ones allowed to be there, smart guy. Put that together yourself, did you?
Wrong. They want to be put into combat operations. That's what they're asking for. That's what this whole discussion is all about. Do you have any idea what the world you're talking about?
I have three grandsons in the military, all have been to Iraq, one is now in Afghanistan. While they are average American young men, they have been brought up to believe that America, so far, is a good country.
They all entered the military for the perks. Two are now in the reserves whilst attending college. The young man in the Navy is a Chief and works in liason with the Army in Afghanistan. He will likely, God willing, stay in until retirement=for the perks.