LGBTQ Fascists, again...

[Starlight]

It would seem that the term “fascist” is being defined as, “anyone who says/does something that I don’t want them to and won’t stop when I tell them to.”

If not, perhaps Seer can tell us what definition he is using.

I would describe Seer as a fascist, in the sense of trying to use that in an accurate, descriptive, way, rather than as an insult.

I think that, as a fascist, Seer finds it useful to obfuscate the term, and apply it liberally to anything he perceives as disagreeing with his position.

[seer]

I would describe Seer as a fascist, in the sense of trying to use that in an accurate, descriptive, way, rather than as an insult.

I think that, as a fascist, Seer finds it useful to obfuscate the term, and apply it liberally to anything he perceives as disagreeing with his position.

Well most fascists are Jew haters, you are a Jew hater, so you are projecting again Star.

[seer]

So you don't really know what a fascist is, seer.

The three Judges involved are part of the judicial system, no more nor less.

When you stop calling all your enemies silly names then you'll look so much more reasonable.

Idiot, I'm speaking of the school board, and yes they are fascist - trying to force their beliefs on children.

[seer]

I’ve reread the article, twice now. That’s NOT what it says. And it frankly wouldn’t change a thing even if it was. If the test was dumbed down, it shouldn’t have been. The task/role is what it is, regardless of who fills it. The point is to create a test designed around the POSITION, not the person. Then anyone who can pass it should be allowed to serve.

Otherwise, it is an exercise in sexism.

What are you taking about? Even in you article it said they lowered standards to get women through combat training. Women can not pass standard infantry training. A lot of men can't either. Never mind that you keep ignoring the fact that women are way more prone to injury - effecting readiness. And Co-ed combat groups in training function much worse than male only combat groups.There is no good reason to include women in these combat units - they do not add to force readiness, just the opposite - they undermine it.

[seer]

You care more about diversity quotas, I care more about defeating enemies. We're not the same.

Bingo!

[seer]

It would seem that the term “fascist” is being defined as, “anyone who says/does something that I don’t want them to and won’t stop when I tell them to.”

Just throwing back the label the left uses against Trump supporters or conservatives in general.

[carpedm9587]

What are you taking about? Even in you article it said they lowered standards to get women through combat training. Women can not pass standard infantry training. A lot of men can't either. Never mind that you keep ignoring the fact that women are way more prone to injury - effecting readiness. And Co-ed combat groups in training function much worse than male only combat groups.There is no good reason to include women in these combat units - they do not add to force readiness, just the opposite - they undermine it.

At this point, you are so far from the argument I have been making, I’m going to abandon this particular sequence. The heart of my argument is captured in the scenario I put forward a couple of posts ago. I’ll wait for your answer.

[carpedm9587]

Just throwing back the label the left uses against Trump supporters or conservatives in general.

So you are beyond just “holding your nose and voting for him,” then? Now you are actively defending him. Interesting.

For the record, I too believe Mr. Trump meets the description of a fascist (or at least a want-to-be), based on his own words and promises, and the words of those he keeps company with, praises, and defends.

I do not believe that I have anywhere used the term
”fascist” in a broad-brush application to the Trump base. And it does not seem to me that a school board that sues in court to protect its curriculum, using the tools of democracy to make its case, meets the definition of “fascist” simply because they are doing something you do not like.

[seer]

At this point, you are so far from the argument I have been making, I’m going to abandon this particular sequence. The heart of my argument is captured in the scenario I put forward a couple of posts ago. I’ll wait for your answer.

There you go again, a couple of post ago? State it here. In any case there is NO EVIDENCE that women in combat rolls add to military effectiveness. Just the opposite...

[seer]

So you are beyond just “holding your nose and voting for him,” then? Now you are actively defending him. Interesting.

Again, I'm voting for the policies not the man, and I will eagerly vote with bells on...

For the record, I too believe Mr. Trump meets the description of a fascist (or at least a want-to-be), based on his own words and promises, and the words of those he keeps company with, praises, and defends.

For the record I believe that you suffer from TDS. You know I think they have medication for that now....

I do not believe that I have anywhere used the term
”fascist” in a broad-brush application to the Trump base. And it does not seem to me that a school board that sues in court to protect its curriculum, using the tools of democracy to make its case, meets the definition of “fascist” simply because they are doing something you do not like.

Biden and others did. And you are broad brushing us - after all we want to put a fascist in office. This is why no one believes that you want an honest dialogue.

[carpedm9587]

There you go again, a couple of post ago? State it here. In any case there is NO EVIDENCE that women in combat rolls add to military effectiveness. Just the opposite...

I’m not playing this game with you, Seer. I post once. Answer if you care to. Don’t if you don’t. Meanwhile, the correct way to say what you have said here is “there is little evidence that women in combat roles maintains combat readiness AS IMPLEMENTED.” There is no reason to think a better implementation (I.e. a single, role-specific test) would not change the outcome. An attitude of “each person to their capabilities” requires it.

[seer]

I’m not playing this game with you, Seer. I post once. Answer if you care to. Don’t if you don’t. Meanwhile, the correct way to say what you have said here is “there is little evidence that women in combat roles maintains combat readiness AS IMPLEMENTED.” There is no reason to think a better implementation (I.e. a single, role-specific test) would not change the outcome. An attitude of “each person to their capabilities” requires it.

What do you mean as implemented? Like you would know how to implement it better? Sorry Carp, adherence to an ideology blinds you to facts. One being the fact that women are up to six times more injury prone. Nothing will change that because that is based on biology. And we are speaking of a role specific test - combat role. And women can not qualify - apart from lowering the standards.

[carpedm9587]

Again, I'm voting for the policies not the man, and I will eagerly vote with bells on...

For the record I believe that you suffer from TDS. You know I think they have medication for that now....

Biden and others did. And you are broad brushing us - after all we want to put a fascist in office. This is why no one believes that you want an honest dialogue.

There is nothing here for me to respond to, so I’ll leave these perspectives to you.

[seer]

There is nothing here for me to respond to, so I’ll leave these perspectives to you.

Just as I'll leave your perspectives to you...

[carpedm9587]

What do you mean as implemented?

I would have thought this was clear, but I will attempt to explain. "As implemented" means, "as it was actually done." I can see a number of flaws that require correction. Most notably, the flaw of compromising the test to begin with. If the test was likewise "eased" for older males, the result would be that males without the skills/capabilities to serve in combat roles would be admitted, again compromising combat readiness. We would then be talking about the suitability of older people in combat roles.

It was also a flaw to provide women with equipment designed for men, which was almost certainly going to increase failures.

Like you would know how to implement it better?

Yes - as I have now said several times - a single test specifically designed to screen in those with the skills/capabilities to serve in combat roles, and screen out all others, would be the obvious solution to the problem. Under Obama, a two-tiered testing process was created, even for combat roles. That means the tests were about the person taking it, and not about the role they were applying for. It was a "quota-based" approach, which was an error. I have now said this multiple times. There is also the equipment issue.

Sorry Carp, adherence to an ideology blinds you to facts. One being the fact that women are up to six times more injury prone. Nothing will change that because that is based on biology. And we are speaking of a role specific test - combat role. And women can not qualify - apart from lowering the standards.

Correction: the women who passed the modified/simplified test are six times more injury prone using equipment designed for men. You have absolutely no data for the results if a) all are taking the same test, and b) women who pass the test are given equipment suitable to their different physiology, rather than equipment designed for men.

You see, Seer, unlike you and Dio, I do not assume that a female, by virtue of the sex alone, is or is not suited to any given job. I believe each person needs to demonstrate they have the skills/capabilities for a position based on the needs of the position. If they do, they should be allowed to serve, regardless of sex. If they don't, they should NOT be allowed to serve, regardless of sex.

It is entirely possible, given the different physiology of males and females, that 70% of the males who apply pass and 30% do not, while 5% of the females who apply pass and 95% do not. That matters not one whit to me. It doesn't even matter if only ONE female, or even NO females, in the whole country passes and serves. If any female has (or females have) the skill/ability, they should be allowed to serve. You and Dio (apparently) would deny them the opportunity to serve solely because they are female, which is (as I have said) the very definition of sexism. It also calls into question your whole anti-DEI "positions based on skills/merit" arguments, since you clearly do not hold that view across the board.

I have to admit that talking with you and Dio is a challenge. Rather than respond to what I am actually saying, you regularly twist it into a straw man position and then vigorously attack it, resulting in arguments that are wide of the mark of what I am actually saying. It seems a bit foolish to me. And I have to admit to some chuckles when I am told that I am "dedicated to quota systems" when my position is actually exactly the opposite. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do. I trust the rest of the readers can see the arguments for what they are, even if you two cannot.