2 female Army officers sue to reverse combat ban - Page 23

Scott_Lafrance · #**331** Jun 15, '12, 4:36 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AthenaC

This is the internet - it is your prerogative to believe my opinion is "preposterous." I, however, believing myself to be of sound mind and judgment, do not have that luxury.

Good day.

I, being of sound mind and judgement, and having 15 years in the military, 8 of which were assigned to combat units, DO have the luxury of saying that a significant majority of women do not have what it takes to handle front line combat. Those that do would create logistical and discipline problems. You want to restructure the entire US military so you can know what it feels like to pull a trigger and take someone's life? Trust me, its not as glamorous as it sounds.

sedonaman · #**332** Jun 15, '12, 5:50 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AthenaC

...
So, then, you are clearly not interested in a fair test. You want to set it up to fail. ...

The exact opposite is the case. Making women meet the same standard as men would be setting them up for failure. Lowering the standards is giving them a better shot at success. What could be more fair?

Scott_Lafrance · #**333** Jun 15, '12, 5:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

The exact opposite is the case. Making women meet the same standard as men would be setting them up for failure. Lowering the standards is giving them a better shot at success. What could be more fair?

Sounds like public school. Make the curriculum so mind-numbingly easy that anyone can pass....and we create a society of morons.

reconman · #**334** Jun 15, '12, 6:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AthenaC

This is the internet - it is your prerogative to believe my opinion is "preposterous." I, however, believing myself to be of sound mind and judgment, do not have that luxury.

Good day.

So then I am wrong? You are (or were) more physically capable than 60% of marine and army infantry?

epan · #**335** Jun 15, '12, 6:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AthenaC

Nope.

Never made that claim. The claim I made is that:

1) At my peak, I was more fit that 60% of all males, cross-service (this was because I worked harder than most men did)
2) Fitness for duty is not about maximizing each individual's potential; it's about whether a given individual meets the minimum standards for duty. If you want to increase the standards to such a point as to exclude ALL women, you will have to accept that up to 60% of your men will be disqualified as well.

I think your statement speaks for itself. You advocate lowering standards of combat readiness to minimum standards. That might work for the DMV. I just don't see it on the move, or under fire. The minimal competency which your advocate out of "fairness" is not compatible with the real world, as I know it.

reconman · #**336** Jun 15, '12, 7:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

Where in the world do you get that.

I had you confused with someone else. My apologies.

reconman · #**337** Jun 15, '12, 9:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AthenaC

This is the internet - it is your prerogative to believe my opinion is "preposterous." I, however, believing myself to be of sound mind and judgment, do not have that luxury.

Good day.

I'm only pointing out that your achievements on the training ground seem to be at odds with historical facts, the laws of physics, and human physiology.

You are on the internet also. I believe you enjoy the same "luxury" as well.