Jump to content

Tucker Carlson now says QAnon doesn't exist


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Yeah but it's actually just not bollocks to realize that men are far stronger and have a higher pain tolerance. Those things really matter and in life and death situations virtue signalling is worthless.

Men also lack the 'get out of jail free card' that women possess, aka a womb. In this modern age of the technical warrior you can waste a ton of time and money on training people who suddenly become unavailable at the only time when they're really needed. 

No argument on the stronger.  I don't agree on the pain tolerance.  That would be an aspect of the individual and related to the training involved.

I also agree that I don't have a womb.

Two out of three, that's not bad, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2021 at 1:34 PM, Infidel Dog said:

I have no idea what you're talking about. But it's a little sad to watch how desperately you're reaching out to find somebody who does.

I've been consistent throughout this conversation. What the Democrooks are calling a "covid relief plan" is mostly (and yes I've specifically used the word mostly) PORK

I have called and continue to call this quote from you a lie from a liar.

I've offered sourced examples and common sense explanation. You've offered nothing but snark, slurs and diversionary blather.

Listen dummy I eant you read these following points and then meditate on them cuz you’re clearly not getting it  

 

1) Only a shitstain Republican would believe that denying much-needed relief for millions of desperate American families and businesses is the lesser evil compared to allowing some ALLEGED so-called “pork” spending  I suppose if you were on the Titanic you would want to make sure everyone had filled out all their passenger paperwork before you threw them life saver  

I ASK YOU AGAIN:  DO YOU REALLY THINK DESPERATE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE WHO BADLY NEED THIS RELIEF WANT IT DENIED BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT “PORK???

Kinda sounds like Republicans’ dubious claims that most seniors would rather die of COVID than see Americans inconvenienced by distancing and mask restrictions 

2) None of your links prove that it was “mostly” pork or that there was any more pork than usual, just allegations  that there was SOME pork  But there is always SOME pork that’s how Washington was designed to work

3) What is and isn’t “pork” is subjective. This business but not that business, this public works project but not that project, this tourist attraction but not that one?

When you read points 1-3 together it’s clear the Republicans were just acting out of oppositional defiance disorder, especially when you consider how badly the relief is needed by working class people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2021 at 9:54 PM, WestCanMan said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662

 

I got my transcript from Politico, I think I might have said I got it from Politifact (aka Politifaked), the thoroughly discredit fact'checker'.

Well I watched the video clip and there’s kind of inaudible cross-talk where they have the “- - -“ but it’s possible he said what you claim he said

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2021 at 6:27 PM, WestCanMan said:

Women have been around since 1989, how many bullets have they ever actually put into bad guys? What have they really done aside from draw paycheques? TBH, their actual contribution in active duty in combat roles is still exactly nothing; ergo, the culture war was not 'lost long ago'.

How many women have actually earned medals?

Since 2000 there were 158 Canadians KIA, only one was a woman and she was in an LAV, not boots on the ground.

What are you trying to say?  They go into combat, shoot and miss?  Not enough women are getting killed? Are you saying any individual military member who doesn’t kill or get killed contributes nothing?

There have most certainly been women on tours and in combat and serving at home and abroad in almost every MOC. How can you say they have contributed nothing? You served in the military, didn’t put any bullets in anyone or get killed. I believe you said that you didn’t even go on any operations. Did you contribute nothing?

 

The culture war indeed lost. Conservatives will always lose culture war because you can never put toothpaste back in the tube. 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What are you trying to say?  They go into combat, shoot and miss?  Not enough women are getting killed? Are you saying any individual military member who doesn’t kill or get killed contributes nothing?

There have most certainly been women on tours and in combat and serving at home and abroad in almost every MOC. How can you say they have contributed nothing? You served in the military, didn’t put any bullets in anyone or get killed. I believe you said that you didn’t even go on any operations. Did you contribute nothing?

 

The culture war indeed lost. Conservatives will always lose culture war because you can never put toothpaste back in the tube. 

What I’m trying to say is that women are not equal in combat roles, period. Furthermore, training them in critical military roles is a risk because they have a get out of jail free card that men do not have.
 

Filling one or more spots in an infantry squad or platoon with women just leaves them shorthanded by as many men.

The difference between me and a woman who claims to have served in combat is that I’m not lying. I’ve never claimed to be a ‘veteran’, what I did was just a ‘job’ because my life was never really at risk.

Women are not left to do or die in the theatre if war. Our only female military KIA was a REMF. She was in a role where she had a very low chance of dying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What I’m trying to say is that women are not equal in combat roles, period. Furthermore, training them in critical military roles is a risk because they have a get out of jail free card that men do not have.
 

Filling one or more spots in an infantry squad or platoon with women just leaves them shorthanded by as many men.

The difference between me and a woman who claims to have served in combat is that I’m not lying. I’ve never claimed to be a ‘veteran’, what I did was just a ‘job’ because my life was never really at risk.

Women are not left to do or die in the theatre if war. Our only female military KIA was a REMF. She was in a role where she had a very low chance of dying.

What bullshit. There is no get out of jail free card.  In modern combat where physical strength matters less I don’t think you can say women are not equal especially outside of Infantry  

There are plenty of female combat veterans around the world especially the US, if there’s a shortage in Canada it’s only due to small Canadian military and relatively few deployments. I have never heard of a woman lying about being a combat veteran. 
 

Nichola Goddard was not a REMF, she was a Forward Observation Officer and crew commander of a LAV.  That is a frontline role, spotting for artillery and air support. The fact that she was killed by direct fire on the battlefield makes this self-evident.   Fun fact:  she was the first Canadian artillery officer to call in support fire on an enemy position since the Korean War. 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What bullshit. There is no get out of jail free card.

Pregnancy is a get out of jail free card. Works for close to a year, maybe permanently.

Quote

In modern combat where physical strength matters less I don’t think you can say women are not equal especially outside of Infantry   

Women are not equal, period. 

Carrying & loading ammo, pulling wrenches, dragging casualties around, moving torpedoes and missiles, throwing grenades, digging foxholes, fighting fires, etc, etc, etc all require strength and/or endurance. They all have to be done quickly and with strength/precision at critical times. 

Sure there are a few elite woman who can do those things reasonably well, but I can tell you that almost every man on earth has the strength to do those things. 

There's no equality here whatsoever. It's like comparing 'male accountants' to 'professional football players'. Sure, you have the occasional kicker and qb that aren't amazing physical specimens, and conversely there may be a few roided-out accountants, but they're not physically equal, and in the theatre of war a lack of physical strength always is a critical flaw.

I was a Naval Weapons Tech, and I can promise you that almost no woman could have done my job. We moved 9' long, 500lb torpedoes during heavy weather, we were inside the 3'50 gun mounting loading it while it was firing, and an inability to do either of those jobs with speed and precision would weaken our entire ship.

Quote

There are plenty of female combat veterans around the world especially the US, if there’s a shortage in Canada it’s only due to small Canadian military and relatively few deployments. I have never heard of a woman lying about being a combat veteran. 

Here's a quote from an article which is basically a fluff piece on this topic: https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/women-in-combat-five-year-status-update

Quote

The 1994 rescinding of the 1988 “Risk Rule” allowed women to serve in all positions except those engaged in direct ground combat roles;

This means that if you're a GI or Marine and you're taking orders from a woman, you automatically know that's a person who has never been in your shoes. 

Quote

Nichola Goddard was not a REMF, she was a Forward Observation Officer and crew commander of a LAV.  That is a frontline role, spotting for artillery and air support. The fact that she was killed by direct fire on the battlefield makes this self-evident.   Fun fact:  she was the first Canadian artillery officer to call in support fire on an enemy position since the Korean War.

It's a near-frontline role. Spotting for artillery and air support isn't the same as close infantry support where your primary role is using your own weaponry to engage the same targets as they are. Her job is to have eyes on her own men, and enemy positions, and relay information so that other people can engage the enemy.

I don't doubt that she was a highly qualified and valuable member of her team, or that she could perform her specific role as well as a man, but she still can't be compared to the guys who go into caves, kick in doors, jump walls, etc, and who are vulnerable to small arms fire. 

Nichola Goddard IS a hero, she's not proof that women are equal to men in combat roles. That's not a thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Listen dummy I eant you read these following points and then meditate on them cuz you’re clearly not getting it  

 

1) Only a shitstain Republican would believe that denying much-needed relief for millions of desperate American families and businesses is the lesser evil compared to allowing some ALLEGED so-called “pork” spending  I suppose if you were on the Titanic you would want to make sure everyone had filled out all their passenger paperwork before you threw them life saver  

That's pretty big talk from somebody who keeps desperately trying to weasel away from the facts. Don't be afraid of the facts, Beave. They won't bite you. No wait...they do kind of often bite you in the ass, metaphorically speaking, don't they? So ya maybe you should be scared.

Here they are again though, for those of us who aren't afraid of them. 

About 8% of the bill was directly related to covid. That 8 % was included in about 800 billion dollars. The addition on top of the 8% was targeted to give Americans making under 75,000 about 1400 dollars per person, or 600 dollars less than what Biden campaigned on and several months late. 

After that about 1 trillion was targeted to Democrat pork. Now I know from previous experience you have problems with math so you'll just have to take my word for it. 1 trillion is more that 800 billion. 

When more or most of the money in a bill goes to pork it becomes know as a pork bill. Or a bill filled with pork.

Like this:

Team-left ‘Covid’ Bill is Full of Pork

Quote

The Wall Street Journal editorial board estimates that, of the entire nearly $2 trillion proposed, only about $825 billion – less than half – is directly related to the pandemic. 

The majority of funds are directed to “expansions of progressive programs, pork, and unrelated policy changes.” 

https://humanevents.com/2021/03/05/team-left-covid-bill-is-full-of-pork/

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2021 at 12:16 AM, WestCanMan said:

Pregnancy is a get out of jail free card. Works for close to a year, maybe permanently.

All the women who serve in the military just get pregnant so they can get out of serving eh?  I’d like to see some statistics on that!  
 

And as if getting pregnant and then having a child for the rest of your life is this easy thing that women do so casually whenever they feel like a little time off work.

 

On 3/24/2021 at 12:16 AM, WestCanMan said:

Women are not equal, period. 

Carrying & loading ammo, pulling wrenches, dragging casualties around, moving torpedoes and missiles, throwing grenades, digging foxholes, fighting fires, etc, etc, etc all require strength and/or endurance. They all have to be done quickly and with strength/precision at critical times. 

Sure there are a few elite woman who can do those things reasonably well, but I can tell you that almost every man on earth has the strength to do those things. 

There's no equality here whatsoever. It's like comparing 'male accountants' to 'professional football players'. Sure, you have the occasional kicker and qb that aren't amazing physical specimens, and conversely there may be a few roided-out accountants, but they're not physically equal, and in the theatre of war a lack of physical strength always is a critical flaw.

I was a Naval Weapons Tech, and I can promise you that almost no woman could have done my job. We moved 9' long, 500lb torpedoes during heavy weather, we were inside the 3'50 gun mounting loading it while it was firing, and an inability to do either of those jobs with speed and precision would weaken our entire s

Not all MOCs require physical strength and if there are women who can meet the physical requirements of demanding jobs and they shouldn’t be excluded just because of their gender 

What’s funny os that sexists like you who believe “all women” should be banned from this or that because of this or that unfair generalization about women, is that you never believe that “all men” should be banned from anything.  Why is that?  
 

You believe women are inferior and should be treated like second class citizens in this country well I’m pleased to tell you that ship has sailed and there are female weapons techs on it. Don’t fret, there are plenty of Muslim countries that welcome your conservative way of thinking perhaps you should move there.  Although as they are also conservatives they don’t take kindly to immigrants so you might have your work cut out for you   

 


 

 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2021 at 12:16 AM, WestCanMan said:

Here's a quote from an article which is basically a fluff piece on this topic: https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/women-in-combat-five-year-status-update

Quote

The 1994 rescinding of the 1988 “Risk Rule” allowed women to serve in all positions except those engaged in direct ground combat roles;

Expand  

This means that if you're a GI or Marine and you're taking orders from a woman, you automatically know that's a person who has never been in your shoes. 

Ok 2 problems with your argument.  First you use the sexist ban from combat roles that men imposed on women to justify further sexist bans on women.  Second your own article if you read it indicated that the ban was lifted in 2015. 
 

Also women were in combat even before that due to the realities of modern warfare:

 

  When the Marine squads went on patrol, the female soldiers went with them to search and sometimes calm Iraqi women. They took part in multiple gunfights; at least one woman in Lioness killed a combatant. None of the Team Lioness members died in battle, but since 2003, more than 165 American women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 1,000 have been wounded, and over 9,000 have been awarded the Combat Action Badge.

https://www.5280.com/2018/10/embedded-with-american-female-combat-soldiers-in-afghanistan/

 

 

On 3/24/2021 at 12:16 AM, WestCanMan said:

It's a near-frontline role. Spotting for artillery and air support isn't the same as close infantry support where your primary role is using your own weaponry to engage the same targets as they are

She was serving on the front line hence it’s a front line role. She was killed on the battlefield by direct fire. You don’t have to be “using your own weapon” or kicking doors or going in to caves to be considered a front line role. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2021 at 2:43 AM, Infidel Dog said:

That's pretty big talk from somebody who keeps desperately trying to weasel away from the facts. Don't be afraid of the facts, Beave. They won't bite you. No wait...they do kind of often bite you in the ass, metaphorically speaking, don't they? So ya maybe you should be scared.

Here they are again though, for those of us who aren't afraid of them. 

About 8% of the bill was directly related to covid. That 8 % was included in about 800 billion dollars. The addition on top of the 8% was targeted to give Americans making under 75,000 about 1400 dollars per person, or 600 dollars less than what Biden campaigned on and several months late. 

After that about 1 trillion was targeted to Democrat pork. Now I know from previous experience you have problems with math so you'll just have to take my word for it. 1 trillion is more that 800 billion. 

When more or most of the money in a bill goes to pork it becomes know as a pork bill. Or a bill filled with pork.

Like this:

Team-left ‘Covid’ Bill is Full of Pork

https://humanevents.com/2021/03/05/team-left-covid-bill-is-full-of-pork/

No you’re still not getting it.  
 

1) Your so-called facts are  not facts they’re just opinions with numbers attached to them. It will never be a fact that x is “pork” because whether or not something is “pork” or justified spending is a matter of opinion. GET IT?

2) Second your whole claim that desperate working class families and struggling businesses don’t want relief if it means there will also be “pork” spending is ridiculous.  As if anyone needed yet more evidence yRepublicans really don’t give a shit about the American people. Not the ones that need help anyway  

3) The relief was reduced from the promised $2,000 to $1,400 as a compromise with Republicans, who blocked the higher amount in December.   Hilarious that after blocking the $2,000 relief measure you try to complain that there wasn’t a $2,000 relief measure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beave, I can't argue with this psychological dysfunction you and others of your political ilk suffer from where numbers become opinions and what you want to belief others are saying as opposed to what they're actually saying becomes your new facts.

Same goes for the reply on the other thread you just posted. That one's even more ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

All the women who serve in the military just get pregnant so they can get out of serving eh?  I’d like to see some statistics on that!  

I was told that it happened on the HMCS Protecteur when it went to the Persian Gulf. There were 42 women in a mess and 17 got pregnant in the 3 months between when they got notice they were going, and when the ship sailed.

Quote

And as if getting pregnant and then having a child for the rest of your life is this easy thing that women do so casually whenever they feel like a little time off work.

Yeah, because getting time off from Starbucks and getting out of fighting in Passchendaele are so similar. Only leftists can see the resemblance though. They have a special ability called 'abject stupidity'.

Quote

Not all MOCs require physical strength and if there are women who can meet the physical requirements of demanding jobs and they shouldn’t be excluded just because of their gender 

What’s funny os that sexists like you who believe “all women” should be banned from this or that because of this or that unfair generalization about women, is that you never believe that “all men” should be banned from anything.  Why is that?  
 

You believe women are inferior and should be treated like second class citizens in this country well I’m pleased to tell you that ship has sailed and there are female weapons techs on it. Don’t fret, there are plenty of Muslim countries that welcome your conservative way of thinking perhaps you should move there.  Although as they are also conservatives they don’t take kindly to immigrants so you might have your work cut out for you   

You're using the kindergarten equality standard on military units and that's called 'virtue signalling'. Women and men aren't the same and in life and death situations virtue signalling should be out of the equation. People like you just have no other means of pumping up your self esteem, aside from blathering, so you're completely unable to reason (as usual). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Ok 2 problems with your argument.  First you use the sexist ban from combat roles that men imposed on women to justify further sexist bans on women.  Second your own article if you read it indicated that the ban was lifted in 2015. 
 

Also women were in combat even before that due to the realities of modern warfare:

 

  When the Marine squads went on patrol, the female soldiers went with them to search and sometimes calm Iraqi women. They took part in multiple gunfights; at least one woman in Lioness killed a combatant. None of the Team Lioness members died in battle, but since 2003, more than 165 American women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 1,000 have been wounded, and over 9,000 have been awarded the Combat Action Badge.

https://www.5280.com/2018/10/embedded-with-american-female-combat-soldiers-in-afghanistan/

Quote

This past spring, the U.S. Army sent a gender-integrated howitzer crew to a war zone for one of the first times. We embedded with the Fort Carson unit on its historic mission in Afghanistan.

The video above is a woman trying to fire a Howitzer for 45 seconds. The man spends less than one second and easily discharges the weapon. What did you learn from watching that? 

Do I need to explain to you how important it is for that weapon to work correctly when there's an actual combat situation instead of a ceremony? You know that there is more than just a few lives on the line, right? The difference between winning and losing a battle can be monumental. Re-taking lost ground can be far more difficult than holding it. 

And the cost of failure is measured in deaths, not just dollars or the pride of some stupid feminists.

Even if the cost just is in dollars, how many women do you see in the NBA? The NFL (or even the CFL)? NHL? MLB? In MLS, Bundesliga, the Premier Division (or any of the lower divisions), etc? Why aren't there women there? 

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=4537 Manon Rheaume, minor league goalie. 

Where do you get the impression that women are as good as men at fighting, carrying injured men around, covering large distances with kit (remember the women in the earlier article from this thread complaining that requirements were set too high for women to pass?), etc?

If you or your son were going to combat, would you want other men there or would you be ok with the same number of women? If your favourite sports team was switched to 50/50 men and women would you still bet on them? If not, then why would you choose to allow your survival to rely on them? 

You do realize that when you swap women into a platoon for men, you're weakening it, right? Thereby reducing the likelihood of them surviving? How is that fair to the men in that platoon, that their lives are put at risk just for the sake of feminism? Could you replace the men with 1.5x as many women? Maybe, but would they be ok with 2/3 of the pay of the men in their platoon? Probably not.

Your arguments are trivial and stupid. This is purely an issue of virtue-signalling and has nothing to do with reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

was told that it happened on the HMCS Protecteur when it went to the Persian Gulf. There were 42 women in a mess and 17 got pregnant in the 3 months between when they got notice they were going, and when the ship sailed.

Must be true, sailors never gossip or spread unconfirmed stories and rumours . Especially not about women🙄.
 

Did you also hear one about a friend of a friend of a friend whose sister’s mailman’s cousin’s former roommate definitely got autism from a public toilet seat? If you heard it from a drinking buddy, you have to believe it definitely happened, otherwise what kind of friend would you be?

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Yeah, because getting time off from Starbucks and getting out of fighting in Passchendaele are so similar. Only leftists can see the resemblance though. They have a special ability called 'abject stupidity'.

First of all the navy is no paschenddale and 9 months of pregnancy, childbirth and then a lifetime of childcare isn’t so obviously preferable to 6-month tour. 
 

Second, the type of people who sign up for a career in the military don’t chicken out so easily and despite physical strength men are not actually found to be braver than women in general.  The women who follow their dreams to the military are no less driven and determined than men. In fact the women who knowingly sign up for a career in an often toxic male-dominated locker room culture are probably tougher and braver than the average male  

 

Look the very fact that tou feel ALL WOMEN must be banned because of tour imaginary hypothetical scenarios regardless of their individual qualities is what makes you sexis  You believe that a woman who is stronger tougher and braver than you or most other men should still be banned based on rumours and generalizations that don’t apply to her, and her individual qualities should be ignored right?  Some individualist you are.  Only righties can make such broad and ignorant generalizations about everyone except themselves. That’s the true example of abject stupidity    

There’s no kindergarten equality standard. Qualified individuals  should be accepted foe the job regardless of their race, religion gender etc. Your if only bigotry that qualified individuals  should be rejected because of generalizations about their gender that don’t even apply to them as individuals is what is kindergarten thinking.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The video above is a woman trying to fire a Howitzer for 45 seconds. The man spends less than one second and easily discharges the weapon. What did you learn from watching that? 

Do I need to explain to you how important it is for that weapon to work correctly when there's an actual combat situation instead of a ceremony? You know that there is more than just a few lives on the line, right? The difference between winning and losing a battle can be monumental. Re-taking lost ground can be far more difficult than holding it. 

And the cost of failure is measured in deaths, not just dollars or the pride of some stupid feminists.

Even if the cost just is in dollars, how many women do you see in the NBA? The NFL (or even the CFL)? NHL? MLB? In MLS, Bundesliga, the Premier Division (or any of the lower divisions), etc? Why aren't there women there? 

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=4537 Manon Rheaume, minor league goalie. 

Where do you get the impression that women are as good as men at fighting, carrying injured men around, covering large distances with kit (remember the women in the earlier article from this thread complaining that requirements were set too high for women to pass?), etc?

If you or your son were going to combat, would you want other men there or would you be ok with the same number of women? If your favourite sports team was switched to 50/50 men and women would you still bet on them? If not, then why would you choose to allow your survival to rely on them? 

You do realize that when you swap women into a platoon for men, you're weakening it, right? Thereby reducing the likelihood of them surviving? How is that fair to the men in that platoon, that their lives are put at risk just for the sake of feminism? Could you replace the men with 1.5x as many women? Maybe, but would they be ok with 2/3 of the pay of the men in their platoon? Probably not.

Your arguments are trivial and stupid. This is purely an issue of virtue-signalling and has nothing to do with reality. 

One visit of an Italian (cadet?  Untrained recruit? Girl Scout?) proves that no woman anywhere on the world can fire any artillery piece eh?  I guess there must be zero videos of white men failing at anything on the internet because that would prove as an species every single one is not capable eh?

 

 The sports comparison is stupid. Military service is not competitive contact sports especially in the computer age and non-infantry MOCs. And I’m willing to bet that the toughest female in the military could beat the weakest male in the military. So if that male can be allowed to serve why can’t that female?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Must be true, sailors never gossip or spread unconfirmed stories and rumours . Especially not about women🙄.
 

Did you also hear one about a friend of a friend of a friend whose sister’s mailman’s cousin’s former roommate definitely got autism from a public toilet seat? If you heard it from a drinking buddy, you have to believe it definitely happened, otherwise what kind of friend would you be?

 

This isn't 4th-hand account, I used to know a lot of people in the navy back then.

Quote

First of all the navy is no paschenddale and 9 months of pregnancy, childbirth and then a lifetime of childcare isn’t so obviously preferable to 6-month tour. 
 

You were the idiot who compared getting out of a war zone to getting a day off from Starbucks Beave, and FYI there are women in more services than just the navy.

Quote

Second, the type of people who sign up for a career in the military don’t chicken out so easily and despite physical strength men are not actually found to be braver than women in general.  The women who follow their dreams to the military are no less driven and determined than men. In fact the women who knowingly sign up for a career in an often toxic male-dominated locker room culture are probably tougher and braver than the average male  

Second, you're wrong again.

Lots of people sign up and then have second thoughts when they see part of someone's head come off beside them.

Quote

Look the very fact that tou feel ALL WOMEN must be banned because of tour imaginary hypothetical scenarios regardless of their individual qualities is what makes you sexis  You believe that a woman who is stronger tougher and braver than you or most other men should still be banned based on rumours and generalizations that don’t apply to her, and her individual qualities should be ignored right?  Some individualist you are.  Only righties can make such broad and ignorant generalizations about everyone except themselves. That’s the true example of abject stupidity    

There’s no kindergarten equality standard. Qualified individuals  should be accepted foe the job regardless of their race, religion gender etc. Your if only bigotry that qualified individuals  should be rejected because of generalizations about their gender that don’t even apply to them as individuals is what is kindergarten thinking.   

Dude, you just keep saying stupid things and hoping that no one will notice.

They aren't hypothetical situations. All of those things happen, a lot. 

There are almost no women that are stronger than a below-average 20 year old man. Of the ones that are comparable, almost all of them are morbidly obese. This isn't news, or me making things up. It's just basic knowledge.

When you only have 20 people with you go outside the wire you need every singe one of them to be able to handle whatever happens. Having 7 or 8 people who can't do a lot of things is a huge mistake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

One visit of an Italian (cadet?  Untrained recruit? Girl Scout?) proves that no woman anywhere on the world can fire any artillery piece eh?  I guess there must be zero videos of white men failing at anything on the internet because that would prove as an species every single one is not capable eh?

What do you mean by 'a visit of a cadet'? 

What you just witnessed is a failure of the highest order on a basic element of one's duty by a grown woman. What was simple and easy for a man was seemingly impossible for that woman. 

You can accept that at a Starbucks or at Staples, it's unacceptable in the military. 51% isn't a pass. You need to get 100% on the easy ones. 

Quote

 The sports comparison is stupid. Military service is not competitive contact sports especially in the computer age and non-infantry MOCs.

The sports comparison is inescapable proof of the obvious. When you train men and women to do the same physical jobs, men are on a completely different level. Not just the elite, the 2nd tier, 3rd tier, 4th tier, etc. When men play against women they have to 'play nice'.

Where you work you may be able to drag some people along who are chronic underachievers, there may even be women at your work who outpace you, but in combat your team is only as strong as it's weakest link. You can't drag people along just because they were never good enough in the first place. 

Quote

And I’m willing to bet that the toughest female in the military could beat the weakest male in the military. So if that male can be allowed to serve why can’t that female?

There are lots of men who didn't even get through basic training. Probably about 5% imo. It's not super-easy. In my platoon of about 120 there were ~ 5 iirc, but they were basically psych cases. They seem to have just cracked for whatever reason.

I get that there are some women who could make it through basic training. Probably at least 50%. Some could even make it through battle school. 5%? Of that 5%, how many will really be able to hack it in combat? Almost none. 

Say they pass all that, there's still the male/female dynamic to contend with. People have to be able to get along. Adding one woman to a platoon changes the whole dynamic drastically. It's a case of 'one bad apple spoiled the bunch' on steroids. I don't even want to imagine a woman who blends in with GIs or Marines or Combat Divers. Just imagine the most 'colourful' hockey locker room that you've ever been in and make it 24/7.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

What do you mean by 'a visit of a cadet'? 

What you just witnessed is a failure of the highest order on a basic element of one's duty by a grown woman. What was simple and easy for a man was seemingly impossible for that woman. 

You can accept that at a Starbucks or at Staples, it's unacceptable in the military. 51% isn't a pass. You need to get 100% on the easy ones. 

What don’t you understand?  She’s one person, for all you know she’s a teenage Cadet not an actual soldier . You want to ban all women including women who could pull that cord just as easily as any man. You want to judge all women as being the same inferior creatures regardless of whether they are individually capable  

Here are 50 militiary fails from around the world almost all of them men  If one fema’s fail proves that all women are unqualified what does dozens of men failing prove?

 


 

 

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The sports comparison is inescapable proof of the obvious. When you train men and women to do the same physical jobs, men are on a completely different level. Not just the elite, the 2nd tier, 3rd tier, 4th tier, etc. When men play against women they have to 'play nice'.

Where you work you may be able to drag some people along who are chronic underachievers, there may even be women at your work who outpace you, but in combat your team is only as strong as it's weakest link. You can't drag people along just because they were never good enough in the first place. 

No the sports comparison is not valid because military service is not anything like sports.   Also mens superiority in physical strength has little to do with most military occupations. But you sound like you want women banned from all military roles.   Do you believe women make inferior pilots or artillery spotters or intelligence analysts too?

 

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

There are lots of men who didn't even get through basic training. Probably about 5% imo. It's not super-easy. In my platoon of about 120 there were ~ 5 iirc, but they were basically psych cases. They seem to have just cracked for whatever reason.

I get that there are some women who could make it through basic training. Probably at least 50%. Some could even make it through battle school. 5%? Of that 5%, how many will really be able to hack it in combat? Almost none. 

I don’t agree with your numbers but the point is any person who could hack it should be allowed to serve regardless of their gender . What’s wrong with that?   Why then need for blanket bans based on broad generalizations?

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Say they pass all that, there's still the male/female dynamic to contend with. People have to be able to get along. Adding one woman to a platoon changes the whole dynamic drastically. It's a case of 'one bad apple spoiled the bunch' on steroids. I don't even want to imagine a woman who blends in with GIs or Marines or Combat Divers. Just imagine the most 'colourful' hockey locker room that you've ever been in and make it 24/7.  

I have no doubt there’s long been a toxic male/ rape culture environment in many/most military settings and a female presence upsets that. But the toxic male/rape culture is not something worth preserving and it can, should and will evolve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

What don’t you understand?  She’s one person, for all you know she’s a teenage Cadet not an actual soldier . You want to ban all women including women who could pull that cord just as easily as any man. You want to judge all women as being the same inferior creatures regardless of whether they are individually capable  

When you have to play stupid to try and refute someone else's point it means that you've lost Beave.

What you don't understand is that she is fully-grown, and she had that job because she was deemed capable of it. She was not.

It wasn't a "one bad moment" fail, like tripping over your shoelaces, where anyone could do it and then you could expect them to go 30 years before it happens again. It was a "lacks the physical capability to perform basic procedures" fail. 

You linked an article to a women's Howitzer unit, I showed you a video of a woman failing at the most basic and essential level in that capacity.

Quote

Here are 50 militiary fails from around the world almost all of them men  If one fema’s fail proves that all women are unqualified what does dozens of men failing prove?

OMG. You don't understand the difference between someone falling off a camel and someone who lacks the physical ability to ever be relied upon to execute their most basic duty?

That woman was like an accountant who can't add or a blind sniper. Her failure wasn't a one-off. It was her complete inability to perform her basic duty.  

Quote

No the sports comparison is not valid because military service is not anything like sports.  

Yes, it is exactly like sports, only losing involves death or dismemberment. 

Quote

Also mens superiority in physical strength has little to do with most military occupations.

And we're not talking about most military occupations. We're talking about key military occupations where a lack of strength and endurance can case deaths within your own unit.

Quote

But you sound like you want women banned from all military roles.  

I've already spoken quite clearly to the contrary, stop lying.

Quote

I don’t agree with your numbers but the point is any person who could hack it should be allowed to serve regardless of their gender . What’s wrong with that?   Why then need for blanket bans based on broad generalizations?

Of course my numbers were 'wrong', you could engineer the requirements any number of ways to generate whatever type of results you wanted. But a basic kit loadout and a minimum marching, elevation gain requirement is going to give the same result over and over - women aren't suited to front-line, boots-on-the-ground combat roles.

Quote

I have no doubt there’s long been a toxic male/ rape culture environment in many/most military settings and a female presence upsets that. But the toxic male/rape culture is not something worth preserving and it can, should and will evolve. 

It's not a 'toxic culture', it's a stress-relief culture. It's a culture where a lot of people are psychologically damaged and sometimes they're a bit volatile.

Bad shit's gonna happen no matter what because Canadians grow up in a bubble and 18 year olds from Kenosha aren't mentally equipped to pick up bunches of children's heads after a Yugoslavian or Rwandan genocide. If it's not that it will be something else in the future. Blowing off steam at the level that a military unit needs to blow off steam isn't PG-13, by a long shot. 

The reason why people who served in Yugo or WWII don't like to tell war stories is because they don't want to remember war stories. Some of them don't hang out with other vets any more for that exact reason.  

When you see a veteran totally obliterated in a bar they'll talk about wearing blue latex gloves and the cheap covid masks you wear to Superstore, to sift through the snow, looking for fingers and bits of scalps after a genocide. Obviously the bigger parts, heads and the like, are easier to find, even when they're children.

Sure, women can deal with things like that just the same as men can, but getting drunk or sleeping in the same barracks with guys who went through that is not normal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2021 at 1:21 PM, WestCanMan said:

When you have to play stupid to try and refute someone else's point it means that you've lost Beave.

What you don't understand is that she is fully-grown, and she had that job because she was deemed capable of it. She was not.

It wasn't a "one bad moment" fail, like tripping over your shoelaces, where anyone could do it and then you could expect them to go 30 years before it happens again. It was a "lacks the physical capability to perform basic procedures" fail. 

You linked an article to a women's Howitzer unit, I showed you a video of a woman failing at the most basic and essential level in that capacity.

The only stupid person here is you because you totally dodged the question and missed the point again.  You showed me a vid of ONE FEMALE failing to do a her job. I asked you why that ONE FEMALE should be used as justification to ban ALL WOMEN including those who could easily do the job. You didn’t answer.  Now answer the fucking question 

 

Your subsequent comments all dodge the same question why ban an entire gender when you can just ban individuals who can’t meet the physical requirements?  I think the real reason is that you only spent a coffee break in the military before washing out and it bothers you to no end that lowly women have found success where you’ve failed  

Lastly rape culture isn’t a legitimate fo of “stress relief” and most sexual predators in the military or elsewhere ate not shell-shocked combat veterans struggling with PTSD. They’re just young toxic male dude-bros who’ve been given a wink and a nod by people who think like you and permitted to get away with escalating behaviour and comments that creates a dangerous environment 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The only stupid person here is you because you totally dodged the question and missed the point again.  You showed me a vid of ONE FEMALE failing to do a her job. I asked you why that ONE FEMALE should be used as justification to ban ALL WOMEN including those who could easily do the job. You didn’t answer.  Now answer the fucking question 

 

Your subsequent comments all dodge the same question why ban an entire gender when you can just ban individuals who can’t meet the physical requirements?  I think the real reason is that you only spent a coffee break in the military before washing out and it bothers you to no end that lowly women have found success where you’ve failed  

 

You used an article about women in artillery units to make a point. I showed you a video which was an exact example of how strength can still be a factor in firing artillery, and where a woman completely failed at something that was easy for a man.

Once again I can see things in advance that you don't even understand with the benefit of hindsight.

You should be listening Beave, yet you're just running your mouth like a wee fool. 

Quote

Lastly rape culture isn’t a legitimate fo of “stress relief” and most sexual predators in the military or elsewhere ate not shell-shocked combat veterans struggling with PTSD. They’re just young toxic male dude-bros who’ve been given a wink and a nod by people who think like you and permitted to get away with escalating behaviour and comments that creates a dangerous environment 

I never said that rape culture was legitimate stress relief, go to hell princess. 

FYI guys in the military let loose with insensitive, crass humour that women find offensive all the time (the gallows humour you see from WWI is a tidied up example). Some vets are also a bit volatile. It's messy. Even if women aren't the targets of an outburst they can be catalysts, escalating a bad situation. If you're around veterans of Yugo you'll find yourself placating them or trying to stop them from engaging in destructive behaviour on a regular basis.

One of my best friends had a wife that cheated on him and normally I'd tell that to a friend right away. They're divorced now, but I'll take her dirty little secret to my deathbed. It's like ignoring the elephant in the room every time I talk to him but he's not a guy that can be trusted to handle information like that safely. 

I don't give a wink and a nod to rape culture like you do to Antifa/BLM violence & murder, crimes are crimes imo.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little tidbit that Army Guy posted in his thread about sexual misconduct in our military.

If there's a place in our country where the power imbalance is so great between a man & woman that it's impossible for consent to be denied it's the military: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/liberals-shut-down-probe-into-sexual-misconduct-in-canadian-military/ar-BB1fzHbi?ocid=msedgntp

"Hey Sarge, can I go home to my friend's wedding or do I have to stay in Afghanistan and go out on a bunch of raids next week?"

"I'll sleep on it."

(Generally speaking, you can always get leave for an immediate family member's wedding (if you give enough notice) or funeral, that's about it. Anything else is most likely a no, all the time. Even a step-sibling's wedding isn't guaranteed, even if they became step-family when you were both toddlers.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...