The All Things Political Topic - Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one

[Hurlshort]

19 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

This is just one example of woke/SJW/PC taking a good thing too far. I can easily provide others

I'm not sure how that applies to anyone transitioning, though. I'd hesitate to change physical requirements if they are deemed necessary for combat efficiency. Of course, if a woman can meet the requirements, or someone transitioning, then why does the biology even matter? I'm sure there are still plenty of men that can't meet the requirements either. 

Actually what I'd like to see if more requirements that clearly favor the female biology. Sure, the beefy guy can lift a bunch of stuff, but can he push through labor pains for 12 hours? 

edit: More serious example - Is speed more important than endurance? My wife is not going to beat my time in a triathlon, but she is going to outlast me on a course. Do these tests accurately assess the importance of that?

Edited April 25, 2022 by Hurlsnot

[Gromnir]

there is something wrong with the test syndrome? 

men have advantages when it comes to endurance. is exactly why lia thomas, a distance swimmer, is kicking the collective arses o' her competition in spite of taking performance inhibiting drugs. men got, on average, lower heart rate, increased heart size, more lung volume, and superior pulmonary function, not to mention advantageous body mass composition aspects. women are superior to men in numerous physical categories, but endurance ain't one o' 'em. is not a huge gap btw, but the study gd referenced by the marines revealed women's aerobic performance were 90% o' their male counterparts, which is not surprising given male physiological advantages. 

if the test is bad, fix it, but knee jerk to that solution might be telegraphing a bit. 

is numerous military roles and civilian jobs which require a degree and kind o' physical fitness which skews in favor o' male domination o' those occupations. so? doesn't make men better. makes men different, which as gd would note, should be obvious as 'posed to fodder for argument. is practical reasons to hire firepersons who is able to carry the average adult male outta a burning building. the weight o' the standard combat loadout is not subjective or gender based. if studies is showing that men in integrated units is needing to carry more 'cause women literal cannot pull their weight, change testing so that even more women get assigned to infantry roles is not the solution.

hurl is correct that there is not many aspects o' modern society which demand a recognition o' gender differentiation, and am in complete agreement that pronouns is a non factor. in our experience if a colleague or student wanted to be referenced by a different pronoun than their birth and our enculturation would natural result, we made efforts to accommodate, 'cause were a non factor in our estimation. civilization were not gonna crumble 'cause a trans lawyer who were born phillip wanted to be addressed with feminine pronouns... though we did sometimes reflexive slip into reflexive "norms" w/o it being some kinda calculated insult. is tough to overcome five decades o' behaviour. regardless, if an individual put in the work and earned their seat at the firm's table or in the school's classroom, then the least we could do would be to speak to them in a way which made 'em more comfortable.

but for those extreme limited set o' occupations and roles which men will dominate 'cause o' XY v. XX, fighting for equality has opposite of the desired result as such pointless battles convince many who is otherwise ambivalent that the defenders o' women equality is unreasonable. 

it's not always the test which is the problem.

HA! Good Fun!

ps btw, hurl's wife outlasting him could be less 'bout physical endurance and more 'bout mental toughness... 'cause counter-intuitive, women also do not benefit from an increased pain threshold many o' us assume exists and as already noted, men (on average) display superior aerobic qualities.

"Epidemiologic and clinical findings clearly demonstrate that women are at increased risk for chronic pain and some evidence suggests that women may experience more severe clinical pain. Studies of experimentally induced pain have produced a very consistent pattern of results, with women exhibiting greater pain sensitivity, enhanced pain facilitation and reduced pain inhibition compared with men, though the magnitude of these sex differences varies across studies. In addition, some evidence suggests sex differences in responses to pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain treatments, though the findings differ depending on the specific treatment and perhaps on characteristics of the pain. Also, gender biases in pain treatment appear to exist, which are influenced by characteristics of both the patient and the provider."

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Gromnir
"tans lawyer" didn't make much sense

[Guard Dog]

9 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

I'm not sure how that applies to anyone transitioning, though. I'd hesitate to change physical requirements if they are deemed necessary for combat efficiency. Of course, if a woman can meet the requirements, or someone transitioning, then why does the biology even matter? I'm sure there are still plenty of men that can't meet the requirements either. 

Actually what I'd like to see if more requirements that clearly favor the female biology. Sure, the beefy guy can lift a bunch of stuff, but can he push through labor pains for 12 hours? 

edit: More serious example - Is speed more important than endurance? My wife is not going to beat my time in a triathlon, but she is going to outlast me on a course. Do these tests accurately assess the importance of that?

The trans example I used was just an example. The lowering of military standards so more women could pass was an entirely different example of a similar mindset. But hardly surprising. To answer your question endurance trumps speed every day of the week and twice on Sundays. But endurance without physical strength is useless.  In my own experience every Marine rifleman is carrying their own gear which includes their pack, rifle, several days worth of MRE, six 30 round magazines for their rifle, extra boots and socks and likely one spare set of utilities, shelter half, rubber bitch, poncho and poncho liner.  In addition if the Marine is in a rifle squad they will be carrying a spare battery for the radio and a spare drum for the SAW. If they are in a weapons platoon they are carrying 200 rds for the M-60 or two 60 mm mortar rounds of one 81 mm mortar round. That is a hard ask for the average female Marine. And the average female Marine is already in excellent physical condition. 

The regular PFT (physical fitness test) is already gender normed. Men and women are held to different standards. The combat PFT was not but until combat roles were opened to women they were not required to take it. Now they are and they are failing it at a rate to 10X their male counterparts. Rather than accept that the average female service member cannot perform at the same physical level as the average male service member the WSJWPC mindset says the test is flawed. It's not. If a male soldier or Marine is wounded in the face of an advancing enemy and the only soldier nearby that can render aid is a female, if she cannot pick that man up and fireman's carry him to safety (a part of the combat PFT) he dies. If she had not been there and a male soldier or Marine had been then he lives. 

I have no problem with women serving in combat roles in general. The idea that they were somehow emotionally ill equipped was as antiquated as it was false. They can be trained to focus on executing their jobs under pressure as well as any man can (incidentally that is the exact purpose of by-the-numbers-drill). If a female soldier or Marine can pass the combat PFT and want to serve in the infantry then welcome aboard. If they can't they have no business being there. But that is not the direction they are going which is sadly no surprise. 

We've already chased two specific examples too far down the rabbit hole here. The point I was trying to make with all this is that Woke/SJW/PC is not entirely bad until it is. Like Aristotle said this vice is excessive in feeling or in actions.  We need to find the mean but Woke/SJW/PC insists its never wrong.

[BruceVC]

34 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The trans example I used was just an example. The lowering of military standards so more women could pass was an entirely different example of a similar mindset. But hardly surprising. To answer your question endurance trumps speed every day of the week and twice on Sundays. But endurance without physical strength is useless.  In my own experience every Marine rifleman is carrying their own gear which includes their pack, rifle, several days worth of MRE, six 30 round magazines for their rifle, extra boots and socks and likely one spare set of utilities, shelter half, rubber bitch, poncho and poncho liner.  In addition if the Marine is in a rifle squad they will be carrying a spare battery for the radio and a spare drum for the SAW. If they are in a weapons platoon they are carrying 200 rds for the M-60 or two 60 mm mortar rounds of one 81 mm mortar round. That is a hard ask for the average female Marine. And the average female Marine is already in excellent physical condition. 

The regular PFT (physical fitness test) is already gender normed. Men and women are held to different standards. The combat PFT was not but until combat roles were opened to women they were not required to take it. Now they are and they are failing it at a rate to 10X their male counterparts. Rather than accept that the average female service member cannot perform at the same physical level as the average male service member the WSJWPC mindset says the test is flawed. It's not. If a male soldier or Marine is wounded in the face of an advancing enemy and the only soldier nearby that can render aid is a female, if she cannot pick that man up and fireman's carry him to safety (a part of the combat PFT) he dies. If she had not been there and a male soldier or Marine had been then he lives. 

I have no problem with women serving in combat roles in general. The idea that they were somehow emotionally ill equipped was as antiquated as it was false. They can be trained to focus on executing their jobs under pressure as well as any man can (incidentally that is the exact purpose of by-the-numbers-drill). If a female soldier or Marine can pass the combat PFT and want to serve in the infantry then welcome aboard. If they can't they have no business being there. But that is not the direction they are going which is sadly no surprise. 

We've already chased two specific examples too far down the rabbit hole here. The point I was trying to make with all this is that Woke/SJW/PC is not entirely bad until it is. Like Aristotle said this vice is excessive in feeling or in actions.  We need to find the mean but Woke/SJW/PC insists its never wrong.

I agree with basically everything you saying about the  role women can play in any military

In SA we have plenty of women in our army but I dont think many who are frontline infantry or who are in our parachute brigades

And their is a huge genetic difference between testosterone levels and physical  strength between men and women from birth. Thats why we dont have full contact sport between  men vs women in events like rugby, boxing or football 

[HoonDing]

I'm sure a girls army could beat the Russians.

[Gorth]

I don't know how differently (if at all) men and women are treated in the Israeli army, but I know my colleague served two years in the army (men serve three years). Her son (who is a dual Israeli/Australian citizen) went back to Israel to serve his 3 years, otherwise he would never be able to return to Israel.

[Gorth]

Ah, election day getting closer in Australia (sadly, I wont manage to get my citizenship in time). An interesting little video from the BBC on why voting is mandatory in Australia (you get fined if you don't vote)

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-australia-61186402

The rationale being it leads to less extremism and populism, because it's not required in order to get people off their couches

(i.e. the results reflects the opinions of the majority of Australians, not just the majority of those who could be bothered to show up)

 

[BruceVC]

53 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Ah, election day getting closer in Australia (sadly, I wont manage to get my citizenship in time). An interesting little video from the BBC on why voting is mandatory in Australia (you get fined if you don't vote)

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-australia-61186402

The rationale being it leads to less extremism and populism, because it's not required in order to get people off their couches

(i.e. the results reflects the opinions of the majority of Australians, not just the majority of those who could be bothered to show up)

 

I absolutely support mandatory voting. In many Western countries you have this voting apathy and basically where people get a public holiday to vote but still refuse to vote

But you will find these same people complaining about inequality. If you dont vote you shouldnt complain about the reality of the state of your country

In SA we only have 55% of people who vote and 60% of young people simply dont bother to vote yet its often the young people who are most entitled and demand jobs and policy changes 

 

 

[Chairchucker]

Voting is made a lot easier in Australia than it is, for example, in the USA.

[BruceVC]

34 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Voting is made a lot easier in Australia than it is, for example, in the USA.

More Americans came out to vote in the 2020 election than any other as far as I remember....but at the least it was 60% or so of the total population

Americans can vote by post and vote weeks  in advance in many states under certain  circumstances. Voting is not hard in the US despite what you may believe. It just requires some effort 

 

[Guard Dog]

I am 100% opposed to MANDATORY voting. But I'm 100% opposed to mandatory anything coming form the government. My automatic reaction is f--k you don't tell me what to do. 

[Gfted1]

6 hours ago, Gorth said:

An interesting little video from the BBC on why voting is mandatory in Australia (you get fined if you don't vote)...

I wish voting was mandatory here. How much is the fine? Im guessing it is easily ignored?

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

More Americans came out to vote in the 2020 election than any other as far as I remember....but at the least it was 60% or so of the total population

Americans can vote by post and vote weeks  in advance in many states under certain  circumstances. Voting is not hard in the US despite what you may believe. It just requires some effort 

 

Need to register to vote and you need to do it periodically in most states and voting ballots are filled with billion different elections and referendums and insistence to keep election during week days make voting quite shore, compared to many other countries. 

 

[Guard Dog]

6 hours ago, Gorth said:

 An interesting little video from the BBC

 

LOL a few weeks ago I was looking for the web site for the BBC America cable channel. I couldn't remember what it was so I did a google search for BBC America. Yeah..... don't do that. 

[majestic]

42 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I am 100% opposed to MANDATORY voting. But I'm 100% opposed to mandatory anything coming form the government. My automatic reaction is f--k you don't tell me what to do. 

What if the government would mandate to be always against what the government mandates?

  

1 minute ago, Guard Dog said:

LOL a few weeks ago I was looking for the web site for the BBC America cable channel. I couldn't remember what it was so I did a google search for BBC America. Yeah..... don't do that. 

Let me guess, this came up?

Edited April 27, 2022 by majestic

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, majestic said:

What if the government would mandate to be always against what the government mandates?

GD thats a good point, what would you do then?

 

[Guard Dog]

4 minutes ago, majestic said:

What if the government would mandate to be always against what the government mandates?

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

I wish voting was mandatory here. How much is the fine? Im guessing it is easily ignored?

$20 ($15 USD). So no, it's not going to force you to mortgage your home away and you wont get a criminal record for not voting. It does seem to work though, with 90%+ participation of the eligible part of the population. Could also have something to do with ease of access to voting.

[Sarex]

1 hour ago, majestic said:

Let me guess, this came up?

How do we know it's really big, nothing to compare it to, not even a banana.

[majestic]

8 minutes ago, Sarex said:

How do we know it's really big, nothing to compare it to, not even a banana.

Obviously I wouldn't show my male chicken to anyone, so you just got to trust me on this!

Eh. That went terrible really quickly.

[BruceVC]

48 minutes ago, Gorth said:

$20 ($15 USD). So no, it's not going to force you to mortgage your home away and you wont get a criminal record for not voting. It does seem to work though, with 90%+ participation of the eligible part of the population. Could also have something to do with ease of access to voting.

@Gorth  do you support the Oz system of mandatory voting?

[Malcador]

 

19 minutes ago, majestic said:

Obviously I wouldn't show my male chicken to anyone, so you just got to trust me on this!

Eh. That went terrible really quickly.

 

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Malcador

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

LOL a few weeks ago I was looking for the web site for the BBC America cable channel. I couldn't remember what it was so I did a google search for BBC America. Yeah..... don't do that. 

I just googled it and got the TV channel. Maybe it's the algorithms making.... assumptions based on your search history, or maybe it's Bill Gates trying to get you into sissy hypno.

27 minutes ago, Sarex said:

How do we know it's really big, nothing to compare it to, not even a banana.

The average woman's hand is about 3 inches. We can use that to judge the relative size of other objects in relation to hands. In this essay I will...

49 minutes ago, Gorth said:

$20 ($15 USD). So no, it's not going to force you to mortgage your home away and you wont get a criminal record for not voting. It does seem to work though, with 90%+ participation of the eligible part of the population. Could also have something to do with ease of access to voting.

In the US case, ease of access is a big issue. If you live in Southern states, particularly in areas with larger Black or Latin populations, there are not very many voting places for all the people there so lines can be hours long. To boot, some places have passed laws making giving water or food to people in ridiculously long lines illegal, because why not make this harder. To drop the other boot, you probably don't get time off work to vote so good luck getting there on election if you've got a 9 to 5. And of course, because of "voter fraud", more convenient ways to vote aren't allowed for a lot of people.

To tie all of this up, there seems to be a general dissatisfaction, with most of my circle vehemently hating the Rs while thinking the Ds are at best a disappointment. I don't think this is a USA specific thing, just looking at the French election Macron is hated and like 90% of votes for him were because he's not Le Pen. There's probably something here about just not being as odious as the reactionaries isn't a solid long term strategy, but that's something that most politicos will get because they are high on their own farts.

[Sarex]

Never known this picture existed

Wonder what the reaction would have been if Russian soldiers were holding Zelenskyy like this.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Sarex

[Hurlshort]

27 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Wonder what the reaction would have been if Russian soldiers were holding Zelenskyy like this.

I remember the picture and there was a very negative reaction to it internationally. The US military condemned the picture and said there would be an investigation. I have no idea what came of that, but pointing to a disgraceful moment for the US military doesn't excuse what Russia is doing.