One of the greatest threats against the well being of human civilization is overpopulation.
What do you mean by that? Do you think wars are a necessary evil?
This is curious because people think otherwise nowadays, that depopulation is a threat. Fewer people wants to have children and that would be a serious risk for the sustainability of the system.
My logic that 14% of woman can be combatants? You missed it. I never said women who are celebate should be combatants. I said it is their choice.
No, you didn't but you suggested that it was a possibility.
Not all of military work is all muscle no brain.
Notwithstanding, that frontline cannon fodder is what it is and techno-war is fought from a safe distance.
War tactics have changed a lot, that's true. Even Russians understand that it's not worth sending troops to an innecesary butchery as they were doing recently in the Ukraine conflict.
Now the best way to win a war is by using kamikaze drones and long distance missiles. Either way, the hand to hand combat can't be ruled out, that's why I think women shouldn't be on the front line because of what I argued: not having physical conditions, being a risk for depopulation, and being a huge distraction for the male soldiers. Though, they can be in other roles like flying drones or any aircraft, repairing equipment, nursing, cooking, and the like.
There is a huge difference between being on the frontlines and being on the front lines as an infantryman. (or I guess infantry woman)
Repair a tank tread (like your video)... sure...a sergeant major providing logistics to the frontline like your video shows...sure....breaching doors in house-to-house close combat...absolutely not.
It doesn't matter if they are at the rear, they are on the frontline anyway, there is a high risk of dying.
Pulling a trigger doesn't take a lot of effort.
Yes, it's easy, but a soldier should also be capable of walking a long distance with 50lbs on the back, without considering the rifle.
Besides, as the video pointed out, having women in the frontline is a huge distraction. Even me when I drive along the streets I can't focus when I see hot chicks passing by.
A couple of surveys I've noted rank women in the military at 18% of all women, rounded up. Another survey ranked women who are celibate by choice at 17%, rounded up. Comparing these two figures, it would appear that the reduction of potential procreation of the human species is not all that affected by women in military combat roles. I'd say if a woman wants to be in a direct combat role, i.e., front-line infantry, and they pass the physical requirements, they ought to have the right to serve in that capacity.
I understand women are free to choose a career, that's why there are other roles in the military that they can do without compromising their lives.
I disagree with your logic, though. Just look, 86% of American women are mothers, so that leaves us with 14% of women that don't have children but this doesn't mean these women want to enrole in the military.
one exception: if a woman has children already, and is in military service, I suggest she not choose to be in front-line combat, because shew already has a more important necessity in child rearing - a seriously necessary role. Other non-combat roles in the military ought to be her chose role.
I was referring in the hypothetical case that a country gets into war, like Vietnam for example. What would have happened if the American government had forced young girls to join the military? That would have been a scandal.
Israel doesn't even do that (put women to fight as combat infantry on front lines), and they have the highest percentage of women in their military out of all the nations in the world. They have frontline roles like medics, artillery support,logistics, but Israel doesn't use women as frontline infantry. And they definitely cannot afford to lower standards that could compromise the outcome of battles.
Are you sure?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4yVZwqtWlQ
I'm not so interested in knowing the reasons of recruiting women on the frontline, but just using the common sense you can tell it's a nonsense. What'd happened if your partner fell down wounded? To my knowledge women don't have the strenght to lift a body and take it back to a safe place.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZRgcmjy0Owc
Is there anyone here who thinks women can go to battle front? Any Democrat here who wants to argue that's OK? There are many European countries that incorporate women for fighting in the battle front, no surprise to me because they are woke. However, Israel also do it and to my knowledge they are not so woke, it seems to be a matter of survival.
The typical argument against it is that women don't have the physical capacities for war. Never did, though there are exceptions counted on the fingers of one hand. Nonetheless, my argument against it is that if women go to war and eventually die, a society loses its capacity to reproduce and recover from depopulation. So, taking women to a war is literally counterproductive. I'd allow women in roles less risky like piloting planes or helicopters, nursing, or what they do best, cooking, but never in combat.
Because the academy has been taken over by the fkn lefties since long ago.
It's no surprise, actually. Gramsci, a theorist of marxism, proposed to take over the cultural institutions (media and education) so to subvert the cultural hegemony over society. In this sense, the socialists abandoned the war of classes for a more subtle way to get the power, through universities, schools, and any institution where they can brainwash people with their fkn ideology.
Russians knew about it very well and they used it against the yankees.
Under this logic, you're better off staying home than going to work, cause there's a risk you'll die in a car accident.
I somehow suspect you'll still go to work. Ask yourself why.
We're talking of health, not of going to work.
The same will apply with the shitty food you eat every day, full of chemicals and poison but you still eat it because you love the risk.
You really deserve a slap on the bald head. 😂
Because then there would be no drug market.
Suspicion is irrelevant. Reasonable suspicion backed by data and evidence is what matters.
I mean, why keep prescribing this medication to pregnant women? There is enough data to take action about it.
Americans are known to be addicted to medication, so I wouldn't rule out that the problem comes from the abuse of this low-cost medicine. It's better to avoid any risk instead of making this a political quarrel.
The fact that the FDA is now pushing this nonsense despite the entire medical community saying this is dangerous is exactly my point.
If there is the suspicion that this medication is dangerous, then why keep it in the market?
I'd say the people left by the Democrats were very irresponsible.
At least the UK will be "saved" when the Muslim children replace your culture and beliefs about what is "smart" over the next 100 years.
Are you from the Middle East? Your style reminds me of an Arab that used to be very rude in DART. 😁
Exactly.
I reckon that if Israel uses its American-made nukes, the response would be devastating. Pakistan and Turkey would wipe the jews out of this dimension. 👌
Well, Trump said an uncomfortable truth, that the UN is useless because of its outcomes, or the lack of them. I think the UN was expecting that, so they decided to sabotage the Trump's presentation. Lol.
He also said smthing about Venezuela and the fate of narco-president Maduro and his henchmen.
I've got to humbly thank Trump for that because what he's going to do will be a great relief for South America. If Maduro falls, then the socialism in Venezuela ends. That means Cuba won't have support from Venezuela anymore and will eventually fall as well. South America will be free of comunism and socialism, and at last we could progress as we should have done it long time ago.
Right, the lefties nominated Kamala, which is an indictment on how incompetent the party is, which is what justified putting the guy in place who says Tylenol is what causes autism.
But Trump didn't say anything wrong about it. It's better to prevent than to let it pass.
At some point a muslim will get his hands on a Nuke, and it wont be Iran developing nuclear powers but a western country where the Jews promoted the destruction of that society through multiculturalism.
I bet it will be France. 😂
With all due respect, this is bullshit.
It's true that Israel has a strategic location. As the fkn aliens explained, they chose to found Israel in this place because it's just in the middle of the road between the East and the West, it's a natural bridge, so it was perfect to them for continuing their plan consisting in preparing a nation that can be a life model for other nations, and this location was ideal to spread such thing. Unfortunately, the aliens aborted the plan because Israel ended up being only a model of disunity, fanatism and elitism. The jews think they are special before "God", that they're above the rest because they were chosen, but the truth is they were chosen to be a nation model that should replicate all over the world and they failed miserably to do so.
We're now in the 21st century, this imaginary barrier you call Israel is not effective because we're in a globalized world. Europe is already crowded with muslims everywhere trying to impose their religion. So, a barrier is useless today because muslims don't invade with armies but with inmigrants. They just need to get on a boat and head right towards Europe or any other developed country because they know they will be welcomed with wide open arms and a lot of social welfare.
Nothing I said was intended to be humorous.
I know, but it ended up being so. Don't take it the wrong way, it happens sometimes.
Do you know why? Jokes are funny because we find them ridiculous or absurd, as your comment. I explained that the jews and muslims are two sides of the same coin, which means they will never put aside their differences to reach an agreement. Their religions don't let them be rational, so we'll see a lot of blood running in this region because of Israel trying to pursue a supposed promise an alien made to them.
Genesis teaches us well enough in the Tower of Babel story that our better selves would learn to get along in spite of our many differences, because we have so much more in common. I the case of Arabs and Jews, they share ancestry, and many cultural similarities, but that really goes for all of us - the entirety of humanity. After all, we even share 99.9...% DNA and there is no race. That's been proven for over 20 years. When are we going to wake up?
Hahahaha.
Do you know what the jews did to the nazis after the Holocaust? They chased them and eventually killed them. And they still do that no matter how defenseless their enemies are. The jews believe in the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", there is no way to change that. The last time someone tried to change it, they ended up sending him to the cross.
The jews are very entitled to do whatever they want because they count with the support of the US. And their unchangable beliefs are a great barrier to find peace in the Middle East.
If Israel continues with their expansionist plans, they are fvcked as many seers predicted it.
It should stop tolerating being attacked and just nuke everything.
I never mentioned anything about nuking the enemy, but I wouldn't be surprised if the jews did.
As I said, I don't give a sht. The jews dream of the Great Israel that expands further Egypt and Siria, so I don't expect them to be open to dialogue, let alone to peace because they are very vengeful people, you know, for that shitty law of Talion.
As to the muslims, they are not that different to the jews.
So, it's not about being productive, it's more about getting along one another, but neither of them know anything about it.
I don't usually take a position about it because I don't give a sht, but if I were asked, I'd say that the best solution for it is that Israel gets dissolved as nation.
There is no other way to bring peace to the Middle East than kick the jews out of this region.
The rule is for the maximum age not the minimum. You should not date anyone older than 28
I think you're right. That's more convenient for me.
😁
If you have a repetitive job, you may be replaced in the near future. But if not, the AI is a great oportunity to grow as a professional.
Dat's not tru.
huat r u talking 'bout, Shirley?
Much as I find Kimmel unfunny and disagree strongly with Sidewalker here, I don't like that the FCC is being weaponized to threaten a network over what a comedian said.
I thought FCC is there to regulate the content in television.
But, well, I don't know. Maybe it's different in the States.
Jimmy Kimmel was pulled off the air over the same comments you're throwing here.
ABC did good, in fact. I saw a lot of news about people being fired from their jobs for mocking Kirk's assaasination in social media. This kind of things shouldn't be allowed because it's not a good example for the youth, specially when it comes from the left.
Are you trying to justify Mormonism?
The people who are "spiritual" are just hippies who want to be promiscuous and hedonist. Let's not pretend like these are sophisticated philosophers.
Come on, Franklin. You're generalising.
It's true that hippies were the first to catch the trend but nowadays you can find people of any kind being spiritual, which usually means following Jesus' teachings but not belonging to any church, nor being submissive to religious leaders, nor practicing stupid rituals.
