View Full Version : Women on the front line
texta
10-09-2009, 08:58 AM
The Labor Government has suggested that defence forces rules be changed so that women aren't restricted from certain positions (such as serving on the front line). However they would 1. still have to meet the normal physical and mental requirements for those positions and since we don't have conscription in Australia would 2. only serve in one of these areas if they chose to.
Is it a good idea? There have been a bunch of guys on the radio saying that it isn't because either women aren't strong enough or they're too pretty or some wank. I kind've think that these propositions are rebutted by points 1. And 2. Respectively.
If there are women out there who want to fight in the front line or whatever and are strong enough to do so then good luck to them.
Stevorooni
10-09-2009, 09:05 AM
If they can do whatever is required of someone on the front line and want to get shot then go for it
Halt, Hammerzeit
10-09-2009, 09:07 AM
I'm all for it as long as they meet the physical and mental requirements for the job. As long as they meet those, there's no reason for them not to be on the front lines.
I wouldn't want to see a woman get shot and die in front of me.
Look at Starship Troopers. It just won't work.
Halt, Hammerzeit
10-09-2009, 09:15 AM
Easy fixed. Just don't have sex with a woman on the front line. If movies have taught me anything it's that you don't get close to someone in a war zone, talk about how you're going to marry your high school sweetheart when you get home or mention that you're only a few days away from retirement.
texta
10-09-2009, 09:23 AM
I wouldn't want to see a woman get shot and die in front of me.
Look at Starship Troopers. It just won't work.
I think that's perhaps just an argument for why you shouldn't be on the front line.
I'd suggest that anyone who wouldn't be able to cope with seeing a fellow soldier killed, irrespective of the sex of that soldier, probably isn't fit to have a combat role in the armed forces.
AranchineD
10-09-2009, 09:26 AM
I think another argument against it was that men, regardless of training or conditioning, could still have the instinct to want to 'protect' the women fighting alongside them and could do something reckless as a result.
I don't know what to think of that though.
Halt, Hammerzeit
10-09-2009, 09:38 AM
How long would it take before a female on the front line would be treated as 'one of the boys', though? With the amount of training they go through you get to rely on your mates a lot. Surely you'd learn what everybody (male and female) is capable of then and trust them enough to do their job.
AranchineD
10-09-2009, 09:42 AM
Again, it doesn't really matter what they actually think of the women and whether they complete trust them or not, it's been argued that there's just a primal instinct in men that could cause them to act that way.
sausage
10-09-2009, 09:45 AM
History says yes and I'm all for it.
Tonez
10-09-2009, 10:12 AM
I think another argument against it was that men, regardless of training or conditioning, could still have the instinct to want to 'protect' the women fighting alongside them and could do something reckless as a result.
I don't know what to think of that though.
We need less soft cocks in the armed forces obviously haha
I voted yes. As someone has already stated, as long as we aren't dropping standards to let them in then good luck.
I'm not joining the army and the only time you'd see me pick up a gun and fight for this Country is if the fight was brought here, so if someone else wants to do it, be my guest.
Serenity
10-09-2009, 10:18 AM
I think this is a good opportunity to bring up the fact I'm thinking of joining as an admin officer. The basic physical requirements for the Army (for women) is 8 push-ups, 45 sit-ups and a 7.5 on the beep test. Not exactly that hard. It varies depending on the section you want to get into, e.g. Air Force or Navy. I would've been more interested in the Air Force but at the moment they're not hiring admin officers. It'll either make me or break me and it's pretty good money. Why wouldn't you?
Might be a bit of a crazy idea but meh, even if I fail the training I'll be a stronger person because of it.
Bottom line: It's not actually that hard to be physically or mentally fit to join the defence force.
AranchineD
10-09-2009, 10:19 AM
Tonez you wouldn't pick up a gun then anyway, you'd just take everyone out with your massive fists. >_>
I don't think it would take much for women to reach the physical standards actually, when I visited my mate at his army barracks last week probably about half the females I saw there could have probably kicked everyone asses there quite easily.
igotnewsuper8systemWRONG!
10-09-2009, 10:22 AM
Does the concept of a front line actually exist in wars anymore?
Ya'll know these bitches just be joinin the army for the mass amounts of dick anyway.
why in the world would you want to create more self-assured butcho's? I voted no.
AranchineD
10-09-2009, 10:24 AM
And when I saw they "could have probably kicked everyone asses" I mean they could drink three quarters of a bottle of vodka and still be standing.
Serenity
10-09-2009, 10:25 AM
Does the concept of a front line actually exist in wars anymore?
Ya'll know these bitches just be joinin the army for the mass amounts of dick anyway.
It's frowned upon to actually get in a relationship while in the defence force, if you DO happen to meet someone you like, you have to get the commanding officer's approval in case it affects your work/judgement/that sort of thing. It's a common misconception that's all the women are interested in.
JubeiSaotome
10-09-2009, 10:26 AM
What next, pet cats on the front line?
AranchineD
10-09-2009, 10:28 AM
It's frowned upon to actually get in a relationship while in the defence force, if you DO happen to meet someone you like, you have to get the commanding officer's approval in case it affects your work/judgement/that sort of thing. It's a common misconception that's all the women are interested in.
Yes, but that's only if the two people are both within the defence force.
If they want to go and pick up 'civilians' they need no such permission!
Halt, Hammerzeit
10-09-2009, 10:31 AM
The basic physical requirements for the Army (for women) is 8 push-ups, 45 sit-ups and a 7.5 on the beep test. Not exactly that hard.
That's because they're basic. I imagine the requirements for soldiers would be higher than admin staff.
igotnewsuper8systemWRONG!
10-09-2009, 10:39 AM
It's frowned upon to actually get in a relationship while in the defence force, if you DO happen to meet someone you like, you have to get the commanding officer's approval in case it affects your work/judgement/that sort of thing. It's a common misconception that's all the women are interested in.
You got me all wrong, I was only jokingly pretending to be sexist because it's frowned upon in the modern world... and it's the internet.
Serenity
10-09-2009, 10:42 AM
That's because they're basic. I imagine the requirements for soldiers would be higher than admin staff.
Well naturally, that's what everyone has to do to get in, then everyone has to learn how to use guns and navigate and all that, even if you don't intend on using them.
Vindik8or
10-09-2009, 10:59 AM
I don't think anyone should fight on any line.
Lazlow
10-09-2009, 11:11 AM
If the mess hall is on the front line, they need to be rethinking where they're setting up base camp.
Azzaman
10-09-2009, 11:23 AM
What next, pet cats on the front line?
I don't see why Pussies shouldn't be allowed on the frontlines ;)
In all seriousness, yes. There is no real reason as to why not, it's been proven to work in other countries and will increase recruitment numbers (which have been lower then desired in previous years). I agree completely though that the physical requirements should be identical to what men have to do, it's not like they'll have to do less work on the front.
Lazlow
10-09-2009, 11:26 AM
Does this mean out front line technicians will have to specialise in manicures and pedicures?
Lazlow
10-09-2009, 11:33 AM
And I sure a shit hope that M16 supplies are kept entirely seperate from the tampons. That's a mix up that could cost lives!
AranchineD
10-09-2009, 11:57 AM
And for every arab head we bring in $5 gets donated to orphans in Sudan!
Xanafalgue
10-09-2009, 01:03 PM
Yeah, I can't see why not. Bulldykes are fairly ferocious.
Lazlow
10-09-2009, 01:09 PM
But how do they intend to piss on dead arab corpses?
It would be horribly inconvenient for them!
Xanafalgue
10-09-2009, 01:11 PM
With their penises.
Tonez
10-09-2009, 01:44 PM
I want to pep you both.
Stevorooni
10-09-2009, 01:53 PM
The good thing is that the enemy will be too distracted by our sexy front line and we'll win the war.
Tonez
10-09-2009, 01:55 PM
The good thing is that the enemy will be too distracted by our sexy front line and we'll win the war.
Have you seen chicks in the Army? Whilst I don't like to generalise much, I will in this case.
They are NOT hot.
Stevorooni
10-09-2009, 01:57 PM
"Being Hot" should be a physical requirement for the front line!
Halt, Hammerzeit
10-09-2009, 02:10 PM
Can you imagine the new line of women's body armour? Finally my dreams of armour reflecting that found in RPGs (ie, the less clothing, the more protection offered) maybe have a chance of coming true!
If it doesn't, it'll be amusing for a while, anyway.
This_is_me
10-09-2009, 02:20 PM
Well since I'am in the Army in a High Ready Gres Unit, I'm not too sure in the whole idea women in a Combat role, If they can handle the training then thats great. I have not seen many females carry 65 kg kit and do a 15km march that's very standard for a Rifle man Position. I voted no. Pffffft the Army fitness entrance test is the bare minimum, it's no cake walk at all if you are thinking that, you will be surprised how many people fail the fitness test.
AranchineD
10-09-2009, 02:22 PM
Have you seen chicks in the Army? Whilst I don't like to generalise much, I will in this case.
They are NOT hot.
Then I guess I just saw the exceptions then. :D
Cicada
10-09-2009, 02:53 PM
Well since I'am in the Army in a High Ready Gres Unit, I'm not too sure in the whole idea women in a Combat role, If they can handle the training then thats great. I have not seen many females carry 65 kg kit and do a 15km march that's very standard for a Rifle man Position. I voted no. Pffffft the Army fitness entrance test is the bare minimum, it's no cake walk at all if you are thinking that, you will be surprised how many people fail the fitness test.
I've no doubt that that's true. But if 85kg of womanly muscle wants to carry a howitzer from Kabul to Baghdad, why not let them?
castr8or
10-09-2009, 03:05 PM
well the US experience (thanks to lack of frontline forcing women into combat situations) is that women in combat have performed quite well.
eg
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/national/17medal.html
of course there are plenty of problems too, the main one being everyone having sex with them which so I'm told is quite an issue.
sausage
10-09-2009, 03:08 PM
Depends what you mean by "serve" of course.
Araenel
10-09-2009, 03:14 PM
well the US experience (thanks to lack of frontline forcing women into combat situations) is that women in combat have performed quite well.
eg
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/national/17medal.html
of course there are plenty of problems too, the main one being everyone having sex with them which so I'm told is quite an issue.
During battle? That sounds awkward.
immol8
10-09-2009, 03:22 PM
It's a great way to throw terrorists off their guard and express your freedom at the same time.
When you guys are talking about hot infantry, all I can think of is that Abu Ghraib skank.
Then I guess I just saw the exceptions then. :D
lol Aran
everyone knows you're standards are nonexistent
AranchineD
10-09-2009, 07:23 PM
lol Aran
everyone knows you're standards are nonexistent
But I haven't pimped myself out yet, Big Bird!
kirok
10-09-2009, 07:45 PM
I have to say no because I feel that no man women or child should have to go to war or be hurt by war.
Azzaman
10-09-2009, 07:59 PM
I have to say no because I feel that no man women or child should have to go to war or be hurt by war.
that kinda avoids the reality of life though.
Vindik8or
10-09-2009, 08:04 PM
that kinda avoids the reality of life though.
No, I don't think it does at all. It is exactly attitudes like yours - that war is inevitable, unavoidable and necessary - that ensure that is exactly how things will continue to be. Kirok is confronting the 'reality of life', as you put it, head on and finding it not to his liking liking, and starting at the first port of call to change things - adjusting his own attitudes.
Xanafalgue
10-09-2009, 08:23 PM
As far as I am aware, war is one of the only constants throughout human history. So until we're elightened beings (2012 obv), it is a reality and should be addressed as such. Not to say this is a good thing, mind.
Vindik8or
10-09-2009, 08:25 PM
That's okay, not being able to read is another thing that perpetuates this bullshit, so you've got that covered too.
Xanafalgue
10-09-2009, 08:26 PM
Go war!
Sytadel
10-09-2009, 09:26 PM
I'm not joining the army and the only time you'd see me pick up a gun and fight for this Country is if the fight was brought here, so if someone else wants to do it, be my guest.
The army is for people who are lost and directionless, and the SAS/Front line is for people who are lost, directionless, and enjoy the smell of napalm and singed flesh in the morning. The only difference between a dedicated soldier and a sociopath is the latter realises their urges early enough to express them in a pro-social way.
Azzaman
10-09-2009, 09:51 PM
No, I don't think it does at all. It is exactly attitudes like yours - that war is inevitable, unavoidable and necessary - that ensure that is exactly how things will continue to be. Kirok is confronting the 'reality of life', as you put it, head on and finding it not to his liking liking, and starting at the first port of call to change things - adjusting his own attitudes.
I think war is inevitable and unavoidable, but I don't think it's necessary. If we don't maintain a standing army what's stopping countries that think war is inevitable from just walking in and taking whatever they want?
AranchineD
10-09-2009, 09:53 PM
And if we continue to grow an army what if other countries become threatened and invade the country to stop us from being a threat to them?
Halt, Hammerzeit
10-09-2009, 10:39 PM
Hooray for circular logic! We have an army because they have an army. They have an army because we have an army. Countries don't trust each other enough for them never to have armies. There may be prolonged times of peace, but human nature will draw us back into conflict somewhere.
AranchineD
10-09-2009, 10:42 PM
And human nature is consistently drawn back into conflict because humans consistently think that it's in human nature to have conflict?
Halt, Hammerzeit
10-09-2009, 10:44 PM
Now you've got the hang of it!
AranchineD
10-09-2009, 10:45 PM
I'm learneding!
Shorty
10-09-2009, 10:48 PM
And if we continue to grow an army what if other countries become threatened and invade the country to stop us from being a threat to them?
This is Australia, where everything is trying to kill you. I'd be suprised if there was anyone left after they land.
AranchineD
10-09-2009, 10:54 PM
This is Australia, where everything is trying to kill you. I'd be suprised if there was anyone left after they land.
I guess I didn't think that Australia already has a great defence system in place to stop any other nation from even thinking of invading us: drop bears.
Sytadel
10-09-2009, 10:57 PM
Hooray for circular logic! We have an army because they have an army. They have an army because we have an army. Countries don't trust each other enough for them never to have armies. There may be prolonged times of peace, but human nature will draw us back into conflict somewhere.
Racism, capitalism, religion, and illicit drug use would probably look like inevitable consequences of evolutionary, social-evolutionary, genetic, and biological variables if you stopped reading history books at various points over the last few hundred years. Each of them could probably be reasonably called "human nature" but the wonderful thing about society and discourse is that we now have the power to use words to overcome our issues. Hence progressive rights movements, intellectual discourse about (against) religious authority, and tempered drug use in most cultures in the world.
Hooray for circular logic! We have an army because they have an army. They have an army because we have an army. Countries don't trust each other enough for them never to have armies. There may be prolonged times of peace, but human nature will draw us back into conflict somewhere.
I want to know why you changed your name. You still post the same
Sytadel
11-09-2009, 12:01 AM
Yikes, how embarassing.
Where the hell did you copypaste that from?
Shorty
11-09-2009, 12:25 AM
A place that keeps a healthy supply of aluminium foil, presumably.
Vindik8or
11-09-2009, 12:27 AM
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5131&page=0
EDIT: Maybe I should email this helmet-wearing Chris Shaw fellow, give him the details of Kirok's blatant plagiarism and let that nutter follow it up. It sure as hell beats chewing Kirok out here and waiting for him to do it again.
Xanafalgue
11-09-2009, 12:30 AM
Hi TAT
I think that's perhaps just an argument for why you shouldn't be on the front line.
I'd suggest that anyone who wouldn't be able to cope with seeing a fellow soldier killed, irrespective of the sex of that soldier, probably isn't fit to have a combat role in the armed forces.Right.
Tell that to the countless veterans who suffer from depression and the many who now battle suicide. They're coping just fine.
Hi TAT
What's up you sick freak
castr8or
11-09-2009, 01:15 AM
The army is for people who are lost and directionless, and the SAS/Front line is for people who are lost, directionless, and enjoy the smell of napalm and singed flesh in the morning. The only difference between a dedicated soldier and a sociopath is the latter realises their urges early enough to express them in a pro-social way.
and Reserves are for what?
sociopaths who have better shit to do most of the time?
I suspect for many front line troops, the killing part is fairly low on the reasons why, hell, most australian frontline troops are unlikely to kill anyone anyways due to the limited role they play in warzones.
Its like saying the police is for people who want to shoot criminals...its absurd.
Soldiering (for want of better word) is a lifestyle choice that appeals to people, not just the sociopaths out there.
that war is inevitable, unavoidable and necessary
are you suggesting that its never inevitable, unavoidable or necessary?
What would your solution to the genocide in Kosovo be? Kindly asking?
Xanafalgue
11-09-2009, 01:37 AM
What's up you sick freak
Oh :(
I don't mean that literally. The Rock used to say that to Goldust.
AranchineD
11-09-2009, 06:38 AM
Right.
Tell that to the countless veterans who suffer from depression and the many who now battle suicide. They're coping just fine.
Oh please, they were fine until they got back home, that's all we give a shit about anyway.
Super Mario
11-09-2009, 07:03 AM
Hoe did I know this was a texta thread?
sausage
11-09-2009, 07:30 AM
Hey kids; people suck and will fight no matter what. Trying to stop war happening is la-la land material.
It's not in human nature to avoid conflict, it's in our DNA, our very being, to fight and squabble amongst ourselves.
I just thank the maker that MAD is around so we won't have another world-wide conflagaration but rather limit conflict to small areas of the globe.
Forgotten what my point was.... umm.... yeah, give a chick a rifle I reckon.
texta
11-09-2009, 11:12 AM
Hooray for circular logic! We have an army because they have an army. They have an army because we have an army. Countries don't trust each other enough for them never to have armies. There may be prolonged times of peace, but human nature will draw us back into conflict somewhere.Our army does a lot more than just fight though. A lot of what our troops do is reconstruction and peace keeping work. I'd say that's thoroughly worthwhile.
Hoe did I know this was a texta thread?Because right below the thread title it usually says who made it?
Araenel
11-09-2009, 11:31 AM
The army is for people who are lost and directionless, and the SAS/Front line is for people who are lost, directionless, and enjoy the smell of napalm and singed flesh in the morning. The only difference between a dedicated soldier and a sociopath is the latter realises their urges early enough to express them in a pro-social way.
Frontline grunts maybe, but the SAS are one of the best trained and respected combat forces in the world, they're hardly sociopaths.
Super Mario
11-09-2009, 12:13 PM
Because right below the thread title it usually says who made it?
I knew from the main page
http://uyac.com.au/forum/images/smilies/h.gif
Xanafalgue
11-09-2009, 02:02 PM
I don't mean that literally. The Rock used to say that to Goldust.
Oh :rolleyes:
Why do women wish to join the army and handle guns?
Because they love magazines!
Okay, that's it from me.
Vindik8or
11-09-2009, 03:31 PM
are you suggesting that its never inevitable, unavoidable or necessary?
What would your solution to the genocide in Kosovo be? Kindly asking?
Yes I am.
That's a tough one, to be sure, and I don't really have an answer. What I'm proposing would be a shift towards global de-militarisation as the best and right thing to do, rather than an application of anti-military tactics to historical examples as a proof to it being right.
It's not in human nature to avoid conflict, it's in our DNA, our very being, to fight and squabble amongst ourselves.
Is it really? You're using some very scientific sounding words there, I'm sure you have some very scientific looking evidence to back that up, right?
AranchineD
11-09-2009, 03:37 PM
Asking for sources about clear opinions, I'm going to have to "/beast" you there Vin.
Even though I also disagree with him.
Vindik8or
11-09-2009, 03:43 PM
I see what you mean, Aran, and I felt it while typing. But saying shit like "its in our DNA" begs for it to be proven.
Azzaman
11-09-2009, 03:52 PM
Yes I am.
That's a tough one, to be sure, and I don't really have an answer. What I'm proposing would be a shift towards global de-militarisation as the best and right thing to do, rather than an application of anti-military tactics to historical examples as a proof to it being right.
So basically you would've stood there and said "Gee wish we had a way of stopping these guys..."?
Vindik8or
11-09-2009, 03:55 PM
I would have said, "Hmm, wonder how these guys got a military when shit was de-militarised"
AranchineD
11-09-2009, 03:56 PM
I see what you mean, Aran, and I felt it while typing. But saying shit like "its in our DNA" begs for it to be proven.
Well I guess it depends on how you look at it. I mean, we know (or at least we believe) we can see if a person can potentially have violent tendencies from looking at their brain activity and structure and such, so you could consider that part of a person's DNA (although not as the whole of humanity's obviously NOT EVERYONE IS THE SAME AND HAS THE EVIL GENE!).
Can you expand that into wanting to fight other villages/races/nations for resources and space? Maybe, and if you did you could probably be able to say what Mr Sausage said above with some element of scientific basis behind it.
Vindik8or
11-09-2009, 03:58 PM
Well I guess it depends on how you look at it. I mean, we know (or at least we believe) we can see if a person can potentially have violent tendencies from looking at their brain activity and structure and such, so you could consider that part of a person's DNA (although not as the whole of humanity's obviously NOT EVERYONE IS THE SAME AND HAS THE EVIL GENE!).
No, how can you consider that?
EDIT: Just because someone is something doesn't mean you can immediately go, OMG DNAS!
AranchineD
11-09-2009, 04:01 PM
I watch a lot of biased crime reenactment and criminal investigation shows hosted by Ray Martin.
But point being that's perhaps the ONLY way I could even remotely see a way to scientifically show it's actually in human DNA to want to have conflict with one another. And I really did imply I don't think that's anywhere near a valid or sound argument anyway.
Azzaman
11-09-2009, 04:05 PM
I would have said, "Hmm, wonder how these guys got a military when shit was de-militarised"
So your solution is to say "None of this shit would be happening if I were in charge!"
Halt, Hammerzeit
11-09-2009, 04:07 PM
The problem is, at the core we're still animals, highly evolved animals to be sure, but animals all the same. We still have the same fight or flight reflexes other animals have, we just have the ability to use reason as well. Until we can find a way to remove emotion decisions (or force everybody to agree) we're not going to be able stop conflicts, let alone disband militaries.
Vindik8or
11-09-2009, 04:18 PM
So your solution is to say "None of this shit would be happening if I were in charge!"
Yes. "See how bad armies are, guys? We should stop this at the source!"
Azzaman
11-09-2009, 04:22 PM
vote Vin09 "Don't even think about war or your done son!"
Xanafalgue
11-09-2009, 04:34 PM
Its in our DNA.
I see what you mean, Aran, and I felt it while typing. But saying shit like "its in our DNA" begs for it to be proven.Personally, I believe in genetic memory, or at least that it may be a possibility. Violence breeding violence, not just through upbringing, but through genetic traits. If immunity to disease and various instincts are passed down through DNA, it's possible that the instinct of violence could be bred into people through generations. To prevent violent traits from being passed down, we would need to gradually remove them through selective breeding.
This is, of course, impossible, as naturally non-violent people would not and could not ever commit this sort of genocide, because by culling violent individuals, they would themselves be exercising violence. It would be along the lines of a Final Fantasy storyline, with the bad guy killing people for what he considers a good reason, but in turn becoming far worse than what he seeks to eliminate. Obviously ridiculous.
But it is entirely possible that if some ethereal being arrived, and killed every single person on the planet with inherently violent traits, or at least, overwhelmingly violent traits, then the remaining people, and their offspring, could possibly live in peace.
This is all assuming that the genetic memory is the only factor that causes violence, which of course it isn't.
Vindik8or
11-09-2009, 04:42 PM
Well good for you, you belief in some bullshit friggin hokum that you give a scientific-sounding name as though that lends it credibility. GTFO, your 'belief' is no different to astrology.
Azzaman
11-09-2009, 04:47 PM
It has more basis in reality then your belief.
Vindik8or
11-09-2009, 04:49 PM
That war is bad? Oh-ho ho! I see what you did there.
Personally, I believe in genetic memory, or at least that it may be a possibility. Violence breeding violence, not just through upbringing, but through genetic traits. If immunity to disease and various instincts are passed down through DNA, it's possible that the instinct of violence could be bred into people through generations. To prevent violent traits from being passed down, we would need to gradually remove them through selective breeding.
This is, of course, impossible, as naturally non-violent people would not and could not ever commit this sort of genocide, because by culling violent individuals, they would themselves be exercising violence. It would be along the lines of a Final Fantasy storyline, with the bad guy killing people for what he considers a good reason, but in turn becoming far worse than what he seeks to eliminate. Obviously ridiculous.
But it is entirely possible that if some ethereal being arrived, and killed every single person on the planet with inherently violent traits, or at least, overwhelmingly violent traits, then the remaining people, and their offspring, could possibly live in peace.
This is all assuming that the genetic memory is the only factor that causes violence, which of course it isn't.
Reminds me of Metal Gear Solid for some reason.
Kotche
11-09-2009, 05:17 PM
Women have fought long and hard for the right to die as equals. Don't take that away from them.
Araenel
11-09-2009, 05:18 PM
I'm not aware of any concrete basis in biology for psychological tendencies to be passed through genetics. The full stop in the genetic sentence ends at tendency/propensity.
Look at it this way. An early human with an 80% increased propensity to violent behaviours (through levels of testosterone and other hormones) uses violence to get food/maintain territory/get females. That behaviour is then reinforced because it was successfull. The children of that early human then quickly (and we learn very quickly about what are appropriate social behaviours) learns through their environment that violence is the best way of achieving life goals.
Don't forget occam's razor/parsimony here people, the simplest explanation with the fewest parts is probably the right one, there's no need to infer some sort of causality to behaviour through genetics, so **** off with your "genetic memory" pseudoscience.
sausage
11-09-2009, 05:20 PM
Vin, if you were in charge the world economy would collapse due to the disbanding of all military.
You remind me of the Eloi from The Time Machine.
Vindik8or
11-09-2009, 05:42 PM
Does it affect anything by admitting that I hope the world's economy collapses?
sausage
11-09-2009, 05:49 PM
Only a little bit.
Sytadel
12-09-2009, 12:40 AM
Frontline grunts maybe, but the SAS are one of the best trained and respected combat forces in the world, they're hardly sociopaths.
What does being trained/respected have to do with not being a sociopath? Sociopaths are often remarkably well trained and affable. Frontline grunts are your run-of-the-mill break n' enters, petty theft, and violence under the influence style criminals. Sociopaths are your meticulous and considered serial killers.
I'm obviously not being totally literal but I think the stereotype holds.
igotnewsuper8systemWRONG!
12-09-2009, 12:51 AM
Reminds me of Metal Gear Solid for some reason.
Even in MGS the genetic memory themes couldn't stick
Araenel
12-09-2009, 12:52 AM
What does being trained/respected have to do with not being a sociopath? Sociopaths are often remarkably well trained and affable. Frontline grunts are your run-of-the-mill break n' enters, petty theft, and violence under the influence style criminals. Sociopaths are your meticulous and considered serial killers.
I'm obviously not being totally literal but I think the stereotype holds.
I wasn't aware you wanted a reasonable response to your hyperbole.
Vindik8or
12-09-2009, 09:05 AM
What does being trained/respected have to do with not being a sociopath? Sociopaths are often remarkably well trained and affable. Frontline grunts are your run-of-the-mill break n' enters, petty theft, and violence under the influence style criminals. Sociopaths are your meticulous and considered serial killers.
I'm obviously not being totally literal but I think the stereotype holds.
What Araenel said. I have certainly met some messed up people from the Army, and it does make me wonder exactly what allows you to pass the psychological tests. But by and large I have met some pretty well-balanced individuals, not in it for the socially acceptable outlet for criminal behaviour. Sure, they were of a certain type, into authority and discipline that kinda thing, but there really wasn't anything dysfunctional or anti-social at all.
This thread is about comfort stations right?
What some of you aren't realising is that it is possible to have an army AND a non-interventionist foreign policy.
igotnewsuper8systemWRONG!
12-09-2009, 12:05 PM
This thread is about comfort stations right?
No it's about women on the front line, given bjay's
Vindik8or
12-09-2009, 03:44 PM
What some of you aren't realising is that it is possible to have an army AND a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Seems like a waste of bucks to me.
sausage
12-09-2009, 03:49 PM
Yeah but Vin in your world we won't be using archaic things like money; you got rid of the economy along with the army.
Vindik8or
12-09-2009, 04:45 PM
That's true. In my world there would be no problem with people organising themselves into hierarchical cadres and roaming the countryside. No weapons allowed, though.
Also, I wouldn't get rid of economies, just the current one.
Afrogamer
12-09-2009, 04:57 PM
That's true. In my world there would be no problem with people organising themselves into hierarchical cadres and roaming the countryside. No weapons allowed, though.
Also, I wouldn't get rid of economies, just the current one.
All that and blackjack right?
Lazlow
12-09-2009, 05:08 PM
and hookers.
Seems like a waste of bucks to me.
It's basically the same in principle as learning a martial art even though you may never need to defend yourself. Nothing wrong with being prepared "just in case".
Vindik8or
12-09-2009, 05:29 PM
Except for the extraordinary cost and the propensity for militaries to seize power.
The US of A actually need their ****ing humongous army to defend themselves against their own constitution, the morons.
I can't see a Star Trek-like future happening unless, well, USA ceases to exist or something similar.
What's wrong with their constitution?
Araenel
12-09-2009, 07:20 PM
The US of A actually need their ****ing humongous army to defend themselves against their own constitution, the morons.
I can't see a Star Trek-like future happening unless, well, USA ceases to exist or something similar.
Say what?
What's wrong with their constitution?
Free speech, right to a fair trial.
Vindik8or
12-09-2009, 07:57 PM
There should definitely be something in there proscribing sending the bill for executions to the families. And eating dogs.
texta
13-09-2009, 09:31 AM
The US of A actually need their ****ing humongous army to defend themselves against their own constitution, the morons.
What's wrong with their constitution?Presumably TAT's alluding to the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
Ironically that was put in place with the intention to protect the American People against their own Government.
The 2nd amendment is awesome for exactly that reason. >_>
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.