Craven, as is appallingly customary, you are trying to apply debate tactics to a subject that has very quantifiable results. There are some things that can be argued to death in a prep school debate hall, where straw man riposts have deadly effect and cries of "fallacy" are a coup-de-grace, however this is one area where the posturing of intellectuals have never created a tactical proficient killing machine. Possibly because the moving parts of such (i.e. the common soldier) are so far from being an "intellectual".
I'm going to point out just a couple of places where the argument, as artfully presented as it may seem, completely overlooks facts that are naturally apparent "on the ground":
Craven de Kere wrote:Given that the only legitimate argument against allowing women is a question of their abilities, then the existence of a woman with said abilities certainly is a reason to allow participation in combat.
I could ask "how would you know?" as since you are not here from the theoretical viewpoint that may be the ONLY argument, but no ...
A couple of months ago I was at a firebase less than six kilometers from the Pakistani border. The area was rife with ACM's (anti-coalition militant - euphemism for everyone who shoots at us). Our firebase housed two special forces teams, a SEAL element, intelligence agents, and a small squad of marines who manned the artillery. Then we received word that a woman was coming out. This gave rise to a considerable number of problems:
- showers. We had one small communal shower with no way to partition it to provide a "female" shower.
- bedrooms. Army regulations (with excellent reason) demand that in NO cases may a woman and a man share a sleeping quarters. This is to eliminate possibility of inappropriate relationships, sexual harrassment, and complaints. The firebase was very small. I slept in a room with 4 other guys. Now we have to provide an entire room for one woman.
- mission. We had a multi-faceted mission just after she arrived. (Apropos, in conformation with most-probable-situations, this woman couldn't pack the same weight as the rest of us.) On day 11 in the mountains we had to medically evacuate her. Why, she had developed a common infection due to many days without washing.
But of course, Craven, the ONLY arguement I have against likewise situations is based on her physical abilities. In your senario we would have had to: a. build her an entire seperate bathroom facility, b. construct extra housing to accomodate a "female-only" quarters, both of these inside an already crowded firebase, c. curtail missions, or at the least take into consideration, her health issues, d. carry her food and water, and possibly some of her cold-weather gear, as it would have weighed about as much as she did ... all just because liberals want to have a woman there just to have her.
To refute your arguement, letter "d" while being the most common and insurmountable problem, was actually the easiest to fix. So NO that is not the ONLY arguement.
Craven de Kere wrote:<parody>
X shouldn't be allowed to do Y because X does not have the ability to do Y. Furthermore, is the mere ability to do Y something that should justify allowing X to do Y? CERTAINLY NOT!
</parody>
Make ability the litmus test, not gender and the issue of ability is moot.
Your parody is completely irrelevant because it catagorically ignores the point I made (you may not have read it, check page 6), that just because a rare woman can make the cut, demographically they are not needed. An arguement that I think is far more persuasive than the whole "strength" factor. Check my statistics. If you think we can't find enough fit men from a pool of approx 67,742,879, with an annual addition of 2,143,873, then you are hopelessly pessimistic. And please don't try to point to recent reports that the Army is failing it's recruitment goals as "evidence" that we don't have enough men, or even "willing" men. Fact is, the minuscule amount of women who would be "willing", and who are physically able, would be so low that there would be no significant boost to recruitment. The reasons for our shortage is political climate, people just don't want to join to be sent to war, and that goes for women as well as men - possibly even more compelling for women.
Do you have any good, tactical, or combat effective reason why women "should" be placed in combat slots? Besides change for changes sake.
Craven de Kere wrote:Quote:There is a chance that I could find a chimp or a mountain gorilla to fill the same specifications, does that mean we should allow primates into our combat positions?
Yes. If primates are capable and willing (you said allow, not force and this eliminates the arguments used against the use of combat dolphins and sea lions that the military currently uses).
This is the kind of rationale that makes liberals look utterly ridiculous. You just said, to support a typically liberal arguement, that primates should be
allowed to join the military. I understand words like "inclusion", but doesn't this take it to the extreme? And if so, where would all the inclusionists out there draw the line? To counter I'll go back to the "why, exactly do we NEED women, gorillas, or alpacas, to bolster our combat arms slots?" Here is the quote you posted:
Quote:"We look at the capabilities of each animal and choose the one who works best for the particular mission you have in mind," Tom LaPuzza, a spokesman for the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Centre in San Diego.
In other words, they are doing the smart thing. Use an asset where it's useful. Not employing an asset simply because a very small percentage can adhere to the physical requirements of combat training (and possess opposable thumbs), and therefore should absolutely be "included" into every thing under the holy banner of equal opportunity/political correctness.
Craven de Kere wrote:Quote:Why are some people so infatuated with the trivial and frivolous?
This topic has enthralled you to, and if you'd spend less time trying to negatively characterize participants herein you might find the time to actually focus on their positions.
For example, if the litmus test is ability, how does gender matter? Please try to make sure to answer that among the ranting about "liberals".
With a feeble ray of hope I've answered your question. "How does gender matter?" Also, the topic "enthralls" me too as I happen to be the ONLY person in the discussion that it would effect. You just so happen to be blithely arguing the sweeping changes of what I do. Another very puesdo-liberal trait. Argue everything whether you have anything to do with it or not. Equivalently, perhaps I should break into preposterous arguement on data systems entry methods, Illinois civil law (joefromchicago), Australian municipal politics (dlowan), or the Star Wars Mulitverse (other liberals).
I won't, but that's because I know, I have nothing to do with that world, I have no first-hand knowledge that would qualify or even justify my extrapolation, and frankly, because I'm just not too interested in preaching about what does not concern me.
So again I reiterate. Why make such a sweeping change, just to make the sweeping change? We DON'T need women in the positions, why make such a fuss over the very select few who could hang, and would want to (more of a rarity than you would imagine or admit).
Why are some people so infatuated with the trivial and frivolous?
(Oh, but primates in combat, now there is a great idea.)
P.S. And I haven't even broached on the psychological reasons to keep them out of the combat arms. That is a whole book unto itself.