Question for Trudeau Haters....

[Dougie93]

now, Army Guy thinks that if you just give females guns, that will even the odds

this is the not the case tho

reason being: it's not about the gun, it's all about the shooter

the male of the species is the apex predator

so he will come with a gun too, and he will aggressively prosecute the attack, while the female cowers

a fearsome male with a firearm can only really be stopped by a professional shooter

females are not psychologically conditioned to prosecute a gunfight,

whereas for aggressive males it is second nature

even in the case of a female cop: she wouldn't stand a chance against a male cop

I've trained male soldiers, and I've trained female soldiers

and head to head, it's no contest, the females are doubly inferior, physically & psychologically

Edited September 7, 2022 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

14 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You agree with females being inferior to males?  Good to know, I guess. 

I know that biology dictates more of our behaviour than you recognize, including a general female instinct to seek a dominant male provider.  It’s not a matter of opinion.  That’s not to say there aren’t counter examples.  There are outliers among both genders.  You think these are political statements because you’ve been raised on the idea that biological reality is a social construct.  Pure radical feminist nonsense.  You don’t even know the sources of your views.  Read about the feminism of the Redstockings movement.

[TreeBeard]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I've trained male soldiers, and I've trained female soldiers

I don’t believe you’ve even trained monkeys.  You’re the definition of delusional internet braggart.  

[Yzermandius19]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Thats a huge statement, But for sake of augment lets say your right, UFC fighting and street fighting 2 different things, and UFC fighters are also not guaranteed winning any fight. that and the fact  i said several times there are no guarantees in any fight But training greatly increases you odds of not getting your head caved in or stuffed in a bag. 

Sure they are, are you saying size and weight is a determining factor in any fight. I say bullshit. I have had my ass handed to me many times, by smaller opponents, and I'm 6 "3" 225 lbs with years of training. 

How many UFC fighters are cruising around town looking to harass women ? probable not many. And for the most part we are talking about untrained men, or women. 

Hey, your entitled to your opinion, you can under estimate all women if you like, think you could handle any of the above women.... lots of u tubes videos of women kicking the shit out of men that thought the same way.  but in this case the objective is not to just beat someone up, it is to cause as much damage in the shortest time so they can escape. 

I am saying that physicality matters

while you pretend it doesn't

and that skill is all that matters

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 You think these are political statements because you’ve been raised on the idea that biological reality is a social construct. 

like every other Millennial 

and they have been raised this way deliberately

to keep the males who might revolt against the system  in check

Millennial world is an effeminate word, by design of the elites

the females ascend, because office work is basically just housework with a computer

[Goddess]

The nuclear family - is a man with free child care, maid service, laundry, cook, psychologist, social coordinator, arm candy, private shopper, emotional punching bag and family obligation buffer.  It was never meant to be a "family".

It was meant to give poor men what rich men have.

[Zeitgeist]

15 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The nuclear family - is a man with free child care, maid service, laundry, cook, psychologist, social coordinator, arm candy, private shopper, emotional punching bag and family obligation buffer.  It was never meant to be a "family".

It was meant to give poor men what rich men have.

I agree somewhat that that was the 50’s nuclear family model, but it required a father/husband with a good enough income for his wife to stay home.  Obviously it’s a good thing that women have more work and role options available to them now, but it’s a bad thing that most families can no longer manage well on a single income.  It actually puts a lot of pressure on parents, means that parenting has to be offloaded to third parties, and adds childcare costs.  I know the Liberals raised funding of childcare, but it hasn’t worked yet nationally.  The cost of living continues to climb and parenting seems to be offloaded more and more to others.  Add state notions of how kids should be raised in state-funded programs and it’s arguable that family life is being undermined.

 I don’t think women are inferior to men. Women and men have different strengths generally and compliment each other.  Workplaces that are dominated by one gender tend to feel imbalanced, but each gender generally feels more comfort/interest in different fields, e.g. females in medicine, males in engineering.   These are just tendencies, not absolutes.  

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.  Obviously it’s a good thing that women have more work and role options available to them now, but it’s a bad thing that most families can no longer manage well on a single income.  It actually puts a lot of pressure on parents, means that parenting has to be offloaded to third parties, and adds childcare costs.  

2. I know the Liberals raised funding of childcare, but it hasn’t worked yet nationally.  

3. The cost of living continues to climb and parenting seems to be offloaded more and more to others.  Add state notions of how kids should be raised in state-funded programs and it’s arguable that family life is being undermined.

4.  I don’t think women are inferior to men. Women and men have different strengths generally and compliment each other.  Workplaces that are dominated by one gender tend to feel imbalanced, but each gender generally feels more comfort/interest in different fields, e.g. females in medicine, males in engineering.   These are just tendencies, not absolutes.  

1. Agreed.
2. How so ? Ontario adopted it, I think, and that was the last province no ?
3. I think you are right, but I don't see an alternative to providing this unless we fix the economic disparity.
4. Perhaps this is true also but people still should be free to pursue what they want to do, and the cultural landscape shouldn't be a barrier to that.

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Agreed.
2. How so ? Ontario adopted it, I think, and that was the last province no ?
3. I think you are right, but I don't see an alternative to providing this unless we fix the economic disparity.
4. Perhaps this is true also but people still should be free to pursue what they want to do, and the cultural landscape shouldn't be a barrier to that.

2. No evidence of widespread lower costs for users.   Feels like another overspending boondoggle with dubious results, but we probably won’t find out the bad news until after next election.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed.  

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. Perhaps this is true also but people still should be free to pursue what they want to do, and the cultural landscape shouldn't be a barrier to that.

the cultural landscape is not a barrier

personal interest is the barrier

disparity is not proof of discrimination

Edited September 7, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. No evidence of widespread lower costs for users.   Feels like another overspending boondoggle with dubious results, but we probably won’t find out the bad news until after next election.

1. Really ?  How is that possible ?   https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/household-finances/article-childcare-at-10-a-day-could-change-would-be-a-game-changer-for-a-young/

Quebec's daycare is 1/8th of Ontario's according to that.  How could costs not be lower after subsidizing ?  
 

[Yzermandius19]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Really ?  How is that possible ?   https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/household-finances/article-childcare-at-10-a-day-could-change-would-be-a-game-changer-for-a-young/

Quebec's daycare is 1/8th of Ontario's according to that.  How could costs not be lower after subsidizing ?  
 

increased demand resulting in raised prices

someone else paying a portion of your expenses doesn't mean no one pays for the rest

Edited September 7, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Really ?  How is that possible ?   https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/household-finances/article-childcare-at-10-a-day-could-change-would-be-a-game-changer-for-a-young/

Quebec's daycare is 1/8th of Ontario's according to that.  How could costs not be lower after subsidizing ?  
 

If you can find a spot. 

I utilize an at-home daycare. The daycare provider has declined to sign-up because of the onerous financial oversight it requires. 

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. increased demand resulting in raised prices.
2. someone else paying a portion of your expenses doesn't mean no one pays for the rest

1. The prices quoted in Quebec are low.
2. It's subsidized, meaning govt $$$.  Does that cost me more in the way of taxes ?  Fair question.  Answer is 'it depends'.  

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

If you can find a spot. 

I utilize an at-home daycare. The daycare provider has declined to sign-up because of the onerous financial oversight it requires. 

Well Ontario hasn't really done a great job on this file so far, so we'll have to see.

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The prices quoted in Quebec are low.
2. It's subsidized, meaning govt $$$.  Does that cost me more in the way of taxes ?  Fair question.  Answer is 'it depends'.  

2. answer is, of course it does

how else is the government going to get the money

if they don't take it from the taxpayers?

Edited September 7, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. answer is, of course it does

 

1. Assuming I am in the top bracket, and assuming nothing else is cut to make way then yes - I agree

[Yzermandius19]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Assuming I am in the top bracket, and assuming nothing else is cut to make way then yes - I agree

Ontario or Quebec cutting something?

what is this, the mirror universe?

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Women and men have different strengths generally and compliment each other.  

I agree.  When both the feminine and masculine strengths are appreciated and valued in a relationship - it leads to happiness for each and for any children that come of the relationship.

I find - in general - that men lack appreciation and do not value the strengths (or work that they do) of women.  I believe this is tied in with the idea of "entitlement".  Many feel "entitled" to women's free labor on their behalf and when you feel entitled to something, it's generally not appreciated or valued.

I feel that one of the most important things in a society is that children are well raised, well educated, loved and treated well.  The other important thing in society is the care of elderly ones.  These important jobs have mostly fallen to women - and I do agree that part of that is biology.  Men can't be the ones getting up several times in the night to breastfeed babies, obviously.  Women tend to be more "care-giving" naturally. But the professions of child care, child education, and care for the elderly are some of the lowest paying professions.  Because they are not valued like they should be in a successful society.

Women, in general, will make an effort to verbally solve differences.  This can be viewed as a "weakness" for those whose first instinct in a conflict is to "come out swinging" or attack - verbally or physically.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Ontario or Quebec cutting something?

what is this, the mirror universe?

Point taken.

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I am saying that physicality matters

while you pretend it doesn't

and that skill is all that matters

I'm not pretending at all, in "most" cases a trained fighter "Man or Women" can end this confrontation with the average joe off the street in under a minute. 

[Goddess]

14 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I'm not pretending at all, in "most" cases a trained fighter "Man or Women" can end this confrontation with the average joe off the street in under a minute. 

I don't think it necessarily has to be ended with physical fighting.

My daughter was recently out with friends and they were sort of getting harassed by another group of young "ladies" throughout the evening.  It was clear they were itching for a fight.

My daughter's group mostly ignored it but finally, one of the young ladies from the other group approached my daughter (who is 4'9") and got right up in her face, asking "What are you gonna do about it?"

My daughter smiled.  And leaned forward and planed a quick kiss on the young woman's nose.

Then everyone started laughing and enjoyed the rest of the evening.

[Army Guy]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

I don't think it necessarily has to be ended with physical fighting.

My daughter was recently out with friends and they were sort of getting harassed by another group of young "ladies" throughout the evening.  It was clear they were itching for a fight.

My daughter's group mostly ignored it but finally, one of the young ladies from the other group approached my daughter (who is 4'9") and got right up in her face, asking "What are you gonna do about it?"

My daughter smiled.  And leaned forward and planed a quick kiss on the young woman's nose.

Then everyone started laughing and enjoyed the rest of the evening.

Your 100 % right, not every confrontation is going to be physical.

This is the best outcome anyone in a confrontation can have, any fight you can walk away from is a win...

But that could have easily gone the other way, in that case a little training would have gone a long way...My girls started training at 6 years old, and are still doing it, some 20 years later. It gives them a slight advantage over someone that is not trained, and i get piece of mind. 

[Dougie93]

34 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Your 100 % right, not every confrontation is going to be physical.

This is the best outcome anyone in a confrontation can have, any fight you can walk away from is a win...

But that could have easily gone the other way, in that case a little training would have gone a long way...My girls started training at 6 years old, and are still doing it, some 20 years later. It gives them a slight advantage over someone that is not trained, and i get piece of mind. 

thing about violent predatory males is that they tend to be psychopaths

so live in fear of being caught and/or defeated

thus they meticulously plan their attacks, as prepared deliberate ambushes

to counter this threat, requires military grade counter ambush drills

attack into the threat without hesitation,

maximum speed, violence & aggression, shock action to break the ambush

the average female simply cannot generate that sort of combat power

most males could not neither

you're taking paramilitary levels of indoctrination & training, executing your combat assessment in split seconds

you need to have been in a lot of action,  many fights, to have this level of response

training is not enough, you need actual contacts to develop these instincts

when a  psychopath launches his ambush, it's going to be point blank no warning

like being on the range in jail

Edited September 7, 2022 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

now, Army Guy thinks that if you just give females guns, that will even the odds

this is the not the case tho

reason being: it's not about the gun, it's all about the shooter

the male of the species is the apex predator

so he will come with a gun too, and he will aggressively prosecute the attack, while the female cowers

a fearsome male with a firearm can only really be stopped by a professional shooter

females are not psychologically conditioned to prosecute a gunfight,

whereas for aggressive males it is second nature

even in the case of a female cop: she wouldn't stand a chance against a male cop

I've trained male soldiers, and I've trained female soldiers

and head to head, it's no contest, the females are doubly inferior, physically & psychologically

Yes it is all about the shooter...and if given the same amount of training anyone can become a professional shooter, with the aggression shown by most men.. Some of the top snipers of in the world were women, Some of the Canadian Combat arms women died putting rounds down range at our enemies, These were women that had received the same training as men...

And on the opposite end we had a RCR CSM refuse to debus  from the LAV under fire becasue he was to scared, he was left behind crying...I'm sure we both can find examples of good and bad behavior or poor quality soldiers. But to outright paint all women as inferior is not right and it does the women that paid the ultimate price for this nation,  it does them no justice.

I seen a Female medic risk her life to save our point man who had been hit in an ambush, we had already taken 3 casualties trying to rescue him, we watch in horror as he took 2 more rounds to the body, she sprung to her feet ran down the ally under heavy fire, we put out as many men as we could fit in that ally to provide cover fire, and here this 150 Lb with all her kit, grabbed up my point guy, weighing in at more than 200 lbs., along with his wpns and fireman carried him back to cover...over 50 feet That sir is a professional shooter, that is extreme aggression, that was a F***ing miracle.  For her efforts she got a slap on the back from the CO and nothing more.

I've seen a lot of professional women on the battle field. Including some in the RCR. who don't have to prove sweat F*** all to me about if they can perform or will they hold the line.