CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Women should have absolutely equal rights to try out for positions within the army, whether that's in combat, or administration, or leadership, or any other position. But, by the same logic, they should be tested against men.
Any woman that meets the standards required should be allowed in, there are plenty. Obviously this does put them at a disadvantage, as they do have different body types, but that is what I think is necessary to maintain a balance between strength of military & equal rights.
Women should not be able to serve equal combat roles as armed forces because we need women in the world to do other things.
I believe that women should not be able to serve equal combat roles as men because there might be a shortage of women around the world. Already in China, there is an unequal ratio of men to women, and we need women to keep our human population going. Also, women need to be able to produce babies for this reason, and the only way they could do that is if they are 18+ years old. If a women decides to go fight the same combat roles as men in a time of war, we will lose a percentage of women worldwide, it is not like after the war only 10 women will die throughout the time of war.
We live in a country that stresses equal rights for women and minorities.
First of all, this is the internet, it's international. We don't all live in one country.
Second of all, so everyone's equal, but some are more equal than others? You can't have equal rights for some, but not for others, and still claim to support equality, even you say it yourself It is unfair for women to be discriminated against because of archaic values.
The actual combat is to protect citizens, such as these women.
Whereas male citizens should sacrifice their lives without a second thought, simply to sacrifice the citizens who are women?
[Women should not fight] because there might be a shortage of women around the world.
But even an equal military would still have many more men, it's more than illogical to save females by sacrificing males, in terms of equality. And then not letting them fight because there might be a shortage, in itself, is hardly valid.
in China, there is an unequal ratio of men to women
That's due to completely different reasons than this, and as there's little to no chance of the Chinese allowing females to serve in the near future, that's hardly relevant.
Also, women need to be able to produce babies for this reason, and the only way they could do that is if they are 18+ years old.
So a woman should have her civil liberties cut down just because she has a uterus? Do you also support outlawing gay relationships? Having a child is a choice, there is no developed country that is totalitarian enough to support an argument like this. They also do not need to be 18 to mother a child, that's medically incorrect.
we will lose a percentage of women worldwide
And female lives are more valuable than the other contestants, men?
I'm not a sexist twat, I support equality. But, this is not equality, this is ridiculous. You even said yourself that women should be in the army a few hours ago. I don't understand what you're getting at.
I can't even imagine why a woman would want to be in a combat role. There are too many differences between men and women for the roles to even be equal. Men were made to be stronger than women. Not that women are weak but in a combat situation I would trust a man to be able to fight and kill an enemy more than I would a woman. Today's world has turned upside down the roles of men and women. Women deserve equal pay and status in the business world but in war and combat women need to allow the men to be men.
In today's military I don't think you realize what kind of women actually choose to enlist, the women that choose to do are stronger than the men that choose not too. Women aren't weak in combat situations, I'm personally in the military and I have never had to second guess whether or not the woman next to me is going to defend my life or question whether or not the woman will be able to cut it. The women that find themselves in combat situations are women that have prepared the same as men for them, and if they are unable to make the cut they don't make the cut ( just as men don't ).
There are special op women that could kick my ass, battle wheathered or not. Women may have been nurturers in the past, but everyone is different. Just as some men would rather play video games all day opposed to serving their country, some women only want to serve their country. And if they are stronger mentally, spiritually, and (in some cases) physically I'd rather have them by my side opposed to some guy who barely made it through boot camp and who was forced to enlist whom has no sense of pride for his country and isn't willing to give his life up for me.
Women are not made with a purpose, they're free to be what they want to be. That's the idea of freedom, of liberty, which almost all countries in the world agree with.
I can't even imagine why a woman would want to be in a combat role
So just because you can't understand it, they shouldn't have the option? I can't imagine joining the army, I'd never do it, but I'd never consider saying that no one should.
Not that women are weak but in a combat situation I would trust a man to be able to fight and kill an enemy more than I would a woman
Considering almost all kills in the army come through modern weaponry, such as missiles, aircraft, guns, and such, I doubt that a woman would be seriously inept at killing someone. Further, why not allow them where they are able to? That is what I suggested.
Today's world has turned upside down the roles of men and women.
Really? Please give examples of when women have been the major fighters in society.
combat women need to allow the men to be men
I've often seen more masculine women than some men. It's sexist to say that all women are weaker than men and do not deserve to be given equal opportunities.
You are focusing on equality too much. I love equality but if we allow a shortage of sex in the military, it is stupid.
Im talking about a soceity with a small population. Or a population with a ridiculous ratio.
I would never allow women in the miltary if i live in a society with 30 women and and 100 men. It is stupid and ridiculous because if all the women die, then how is that society going to grow.
Surely you at least agree with that?
And yes, i understand that America isn't like that. Im just proposing hypothetical questions.
And the same goes to men. If a society has 100 women and 30 men, allowing men in the army is a ridiculous proposal. I think that is where the author is getting at.
And i understand and agree that women should do what they want as well as men. Im of course ignoring immoral things except war. There are some perspectives like yours like im "heck yes women should choose." But with the view i proposed above, im like ".....yeah, lets put a hold on those equal rights."
Im not completely sticking to one view.
Edit. Im not too smart. ha ha, you must had realized that. But um, what im thinking is that equality can lead to economic problems. Don't you think every human deserves to live in America? That immigrants don't need a green card or whatever it is called that allows them to live in America forever? This system we have isn't equality but if we do allow a huge amount of people in America, that can spell troubles for people. One example are jobs. Not everybody is going to have a job in America if the amount of positions available is less than the amount of people existing in America.
What can women do that men cant, other than give birth and breast feed?
Shortage of women? come on, there are 7 + BILLION people on the planet, war usually kills only a few hundred thousand and at best could kill a few million. Nuclear doesnt enter into the equation because if nukes are launched the world is basically done for anyway, only a few thousand have any chance of survival by staying in shielded underground bunkers, and even then, it is probably a delusional that after they run out of food and need to return to the surface that they could survive in the fallout. Fallout was only a game series afterall :).
The unequal ratio of men and women in China is a good thing because population grown is a bad thing. it is the reason why we need so much economic growth and is the reason why scarcity increases globally, and why desperation on many levels occurs. Too many people + finite resources = scarcity and desperation.
Women dont need to be 18+ to have babies. it is recommended that they are at least this old but females can have babies as soon as they ovulate. (not a recommendation, just a biological truth)
Globally we could lose millions of women in war and we would still be sooooo veryyyy overpopulated as to make nearly no dent in the global population demographics.
(Suggestion - learn a little bit more before you say things out loud or on the internet. I am not trying to be mean but to be honest, i laughed at what you wrote because it would only make sense if we had national populations below a ~ 5 million. Most nations have tens and hundreds of millions of people respectively - The US has ~300 million, China has ~ 1,400 Million) Even the City of New York has something like 8 million. Maintaining sufficient population is only a problem when we have few people on the planet.
Globally we could lose ~ 1 out of every 14 people and still be in no way threatened as a species. If this were to occure by non-nuclear and/or non-persistant chemical and biological means the quality of life would go up tremendously, scarcity and environmental degradation would be vastly smaller problems and war would be so infrequent that the term paradise would be a strongly justifiable adjective for earth.
This issue is quite sophisticated and provokes another questions: what does it mean to "serve in the army"? Should women run and shoot or take part in hostilities or cruelly kill?
Nevertheless, it is not a secret that the high level of physical strength of men's muscles can not be compared with female's. Besides, for women it is impossible to achieve a decent muscle mass.
In order to avoid idle chatter, there is statistical data: the ratio of female and male muscles strength on average 2 / 3 and the muscles of the upper limbs is 20-30% weaker than the lower ones. Here is more information http://www.jaxtrainer.com/m-vs-w.html. Women should choose burden that they could bear.
What does attract women in the army- heroism? In major cases women do not have the desire to protect the homeland but go to serve in army because for some it is an opportunity to get high salary and also a good pension in the future and particular privileges. For example, the salary of civilian nurses is lower than military nurses have. However, women can find well-paid job outside of army and have a good pension and benefits.
In case if a war breaks out, women serving in the army will have to leave their children. What will be with frail, delicate women after they start to kill? It is definitely can turn a woman to a man.
However, there are a lot of posts in the security, communications, medicine where females will be much more useful rather than men because of women's tolerance, diligence, ability to do hard work which requires patience. Additionally, such types of work do not have harmful influence on women's health and they are able to have a baby.
If women serve in army, they should serve where they can be really useful without trying to do the job that only men can do.
It is necessary to remember that there is one life and to live by doing men's job, females do not have time to really stay women.
I think the notion of "serve in the military" has now been reduced to combat roles insofar as we already have women in all brances of the armed services - to my knowledge some have actually served in combat roles, although vastly less frequently.
It does take a high level of physical strength for service, however the issue is not about the physical abilities of women generally, it is about the right of women to try and take part equally. Even if there was only one woman who could serve in a combat role, she should have the right to do it for the sake of equality.
Women are attracted to the army for the same reasons as men. Why would you assume that there is any difference between men and women in terms of their motivations? Men go into it for money too, the majority of people go into it with the hopes that there will not be a war. Why would anyone want to fight in a war? Both men and women can and do find jobs in and out of the military with various rates of pay, why do you need to differentiate between men and women on that point?
If war breaks out, the mothers and fathers have to go to war, why do you think that women are more important to raising children than fathers are? I know many fathers who are great parents, even some who went to war. Many fathers are better than mothers. My friend Mike went to iraq and he is a decent father, way better than the mother who was a drug addict that killed herself by overdosing. When the fathers go to war it is just as much of a loss to the children as it would be with a mother (which already occurs anyway even if they are not serving in combat roles). The quality of a person that goes to war tends to stay the same insofar as being parents. My father's friend and former co-worker (my dad is retired now) is an army ranger and he is a good father even though he has served in both iraq and afganistan. War can amplify negative tendencies in people and give them PTSD but a mother having this issue is not meaningfully different than a father having this issue. A kid isnt going to be like my dad went into the army and when he got back from war he used to beat me within an inch of my life, but because my mother was not messed up, I am fine and have to poorly adjusted elements of my personality, it was as though my father didnt torture me. - This is not how it works.
Women are not necessarily more tollerant, or more dillignent, or work harder, or have more patience. And why do you want men to be in harms way? The baby argument is not a good one because we as a nation and also globally have more than enough people, the population is not going to be adversely influenced by the loss of women in a war. Even if half of the casualties of the last two wars were female, it wouldnt really effect birthrates.
Allow me to give you an arument similar to the last one you gave that points to the rediculousness of the statement.
- It is necessary to remember that there is one life and to live by a females job (caring for babies), men do not have time to really stay men.
What am i a ogre? am i not suited for caring for children? ever see the movie GI jane? What are your thoughts about female gymnasts? they physically prevent their development by training so hard that they cant have periods. should women also not be allowed to compete in sports? Women that grow up in extreme poverty near areas of high crime tend to be bad mothers should we remove all women from these areas?
As you said «the issue is not about the physical abilities of women generally, it is about the right of women to try and take part equally.» However, if the issue includes the serve of women in army equally with men, it means that females should have the same responsibilities and do the same things that men do such as killing people, which requires physical strength. That is why I mentioned the differences of physical abilities between women and men.
In addition, I am speaking about physical abilities because good physical fitness is an indicator of better outcome in the battle. However, women can not fight as effectively as men.
This argument is not the fruit of my imagination. The research has been done.
“Chairman of the Department of Military Science at the University of
Michigan, who conducted a test of Army officer candidates, and found that: The
top 20 percent of women at West Point achieved scores on the Army Physical
Fitness Test equivalent to the bottom 20 percent of male cadets. Only seven
percent of women can meet a score of 60 on the push-up test, while 78 percent
of men exceed it. A 20- to 30-year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a
50-year- old man. Only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard
achieved by 60 out of 100 men. Woman by nature are smaller and slower, and
have 40% less upper body strength.” EFFICIENCY- that is the point.
You said “Why would you assume that there is any difference between men and women in terms of their motivations?”
Maybe you did not read my post attentively because I did not said that there is difference between women and men in their motivations to serve in army. I just mention that many women make decision to serve in army in order to earn money and benefits. However, men are not exception and I do not reject this fact.
I did not say that mothers are better than fathers or vice versa. You pay too much attention to this issue.
It is wonderful that you have courageous friend who does not afraid of blood and violence and at the same time he is a good father in contrast to woman who was a biological mother. However, it is out of the topic. Besides, I do not think that alcoholics and drug addicted people are allowed to take place in army whether they are females or males.
You did not understand my point about women and children. When I said “In case if a war breaks out, women serving in the army will have to leave their children”. I considered newborn babies.
Of course, man also can provide all necessary care for the baby. Nevertheless, child should be nourished with breast milk.
“Breast milk is widely acknowledged as the most complete form of nutrition for infants, with a range of benefits for infants' health, growth, immunity and development”.
-- Healthy People 2010, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
How would it possible without mother who should go to take a part in fight?
Besides, I did not say that if a lot of women will be killed in a war, it can somehow affect on the rate of population.
“there is one life and to live, by doing men's job, females do not have time to really stay women”. Did I say that females job is caring for babies? Definitely I did not. It is your opinion. As I understood, you define women's main goal as just upbringing children. It sounds quite challenging.
Women should be women. They should be sensitive.
Finally, I gave credible evidences in order to support my opinion.
However, you did not mention any reason for which women should serve in the army. That is why I cannot agree with your points.
Additionally, such types of work do not have harmful influence on women's health and they are able to have a baby.
I disagree with this statement. Because There is also the problem of pregnancies, definitely when "enlisted pregnancy rates jumped from 12 to 19 percent" (Donnelly) in only the past two years. Having combat situations jeopardized because a woman finds out she is pregnant during an extended combat mission would be totally counterproductive to any benefits. There is also the problem of soldiers who don't know they're pregnant yet who might put unnecessary stress on the unborn child in the most fragile early stages of the baby's life.
"Additionally, such types of work do not have harmful influence on women's health and they are able to have a baby". => such types of work as: "posts in the security, communications, medicine" obviously do not have destructive influence on health.
Any woman that chooses to fight for her country should be allowed to do so.
We live in a country that stresses equal rights for women and minorities. That should encompass all aspects of life. It is unfair for women to be discriminated against because of archaic values. If a woman wants to go into battle to defend her country, then she should be allowed. The actual combat is to protect citizens, such as these women. They should be able to fight for themselves, if they want.
Most of the women I served with were indeed "tough." To put it another way, they were no stronger or weaker than some of the men, serving in the Armed Forces.
Does it really matter what gender the person is? I realize in past times, women were not legally permitted on the battlefield, but did that stop them?
In the civil war, a woman's husband went out for battle one day. She then decided to disguise herself as a man, and fight alongside her husband. They both died.
This shows that women can have the same drive to go out and protect thier country or beliefs in this case. If the women are willing to go out and risk thier lives for thier country, then they should be able to.
Women should have absolutely equal rights to try out for positions within the army, whether that's in combat, or administration, or leadership, or any other position. But, by the same logic, they should be tested against men.
Any woman that meets the standards required should be allowed in, there are plenty. Obviously this does put them at a disadvantage, as they do have different body types, but that is what I think is necessary to maintain a balance between strength of military & equal rights.
Additionally, such types of work do not have harmful influence on women's health and they are able to have a baby.
I disagree with this statement. Because There is also the problem of pregnancies, definitely when "enlisted pregnancy rates jumped from 12 to 19 percent" (Donnelly) in only the past two years. Having combat situations jeopardized because a woman finds out she is pregnant during an extended combat mission would be totally counterproductive to any benefits. There is also the problem of soldiers who don't know they're pregnant yet who might put unnecessary stress on the unborn child in the most fragile early stages of the baby's life.
I don't think women should be forced into combat situations. I agree they weren't built for it emotionally or physically. If a woman wants to do it and the Army doesn't have a problem with it, I wouldn't forbid it, but I'm afraid once it's not against the rules women who don't want to be in combat may be forced to be. This will be especially bad if the draft is re instituted. I think mothers, especially, shouldn't be in combat zones, especially if their children are young. I think children need to have their mothers around during those years. It's one thing to be a working mom. It's another to be working on the other side of the world where you can't be home for the kids at night.
As a man i am againts this. It is not natural have in army Women-Solider. From Ancient time soliders were only men , all wars won men. I cant understand why women wanted to be so quel as men in specific sections like ARMY. War is a terrible, Horrible thing and how so beautiful human being will be in war, in army. Army is not a game it is strick job , very difficult, many men cant be succefull in army becouse you need to be like steel. I really dont think that women really want it. I am prefer see girl in a romatic restouran with a wine glass instead of girl in camo suite with AK-47.
There's actually been quite a few times in history where women have been soldiers.
The famous Boadicea: the Celt warrior who defended Britain from the Romans, the Dahomey Amazons, St Joan of Arc, they all were successful female soldiers. Obviously, they are a minority, but especially with the modern development of guns, females are increasingly equal on the battlefield.
I really dont think that women really want it.
I don't really think that it's your choice, surely it would be better to let them choose? You're at least bordering on sexist.
Plenty of women want to be in a military position, and plenty are qualified to do so. The idea of wanting "strength" in the military can be supported by militaries, as was said earlier, having equal entrance requirements for both sexes. I know some guys that I would be horrified to see in the military, because they wouldn't be able to work in a restrictive atmosphere such as the Army, and i know some women that i feel the same way about. The point isn't sexes, the point is physical and mental commitment to the service. Oh, and just because you would RATHER see women in a nice outfit holding a bottle of wine, doesn't mean you can make that choice. Some women like camo pants and AK 47's. Just like some men would rather wear dresses ;)
On your statement of equal entrance requirements specifically and concentrating on the physical aspect; only if the standards aren't lowered.
"If we set "stronger" as being able to lift the heaviest weight, then the answer is that there are basic anatomical and biological differences that make men able to develop, sustain and use more muscle mass than women. Basic anatomy and statistics on work/sports related injuries tells us this, and no political agenda is going to change that.
So if you take an average man and an average woman, equally motivated and dedicated, and have them both train as hard as they can - then the man will end up stronger."
Although it's well known that adrenaline surges can boost strength beyond normal muscle failure, males have a greater endurance with heavier weights.
Why does it matter? Someone has to pick up all 200 lbs of me if I get injured in combat and cannot move under my own mobility. As determined as that petite 100 lb female is, she might only be able to cross the 10 yard line. Whatever standards there are for female firefighters sounds like a good idea. My aunt was a police officer, weighed 127 lbs, 5'6 and dragged 6 people out of a burning house. I'd fight along side her.
BTW, I am a combat vet and fought in 8 battles. For what it's worth.
So you're saying that everyone should just have to meet certain qualifications? That's what i was saying...and thank you for serving :) I have alot of friends in the military and I know how important you guys are.I guess that was more of a comment than an argument...but...
I don't think women should be forced into combat situations. I agree they weren't built for it emotionally or physically. If a woman wants to do it and the Army doesn't have a problem with it, I wouldn't forbid it, but I'm afraid once it's not against the rules women who don't want to be in combat may be forced to be. This will be especially bad if the draft is re instituted. I think mothers, especially, shouldn't be in combat zones, especially if their children are young. I think children need to have their mothers around during those years. It's one thing to be a working mom. It's another to be working on the other side of the world where you can't be home for the kids at night.
And it's all not about rights of women. We need to have strong common scene and cold head. Sometimes women can be more more stressful than men and it can badly damage some serious situations.
Although women have been warriors across the world and throughout history, American culture is a huge obstacle.
So much WILL go wrong.
You will have 5 men competing for 1 woman in a squad of 6. This breaks unit cohesion (esprit decor). 1 or more of the males will choose to save the female over a male who is injured worse.
Me, no. I'd let her die so that we could finish the mission. (I am a combat vet and fought in 8 major battles). I completely shut down all of my emotions in combat except rage/anger and exhilaration. But prior to that for instance, I would be distracted because I would want to at least have sex with her.
In Desert Shield (the recon and logistics phase) - I had not seen a female in 7 months. I was already in Iraq doing reconnaissance and not around any form of civilization.
I'm not alone in saying that I would want to have sex one last time before getting killed.
In the Gulf War, Iraq War and Afghanistan, females in support units would intentionally get pregnant to be sent back to the US. Just a small percentage, but males don't have that option unless they purposely self-injure or flat out refuse (in which case they may not even get to go to jail if they are already deep in the soup).
Females do make excellent fighter pilots (helicopter and fixed wing). They have demonstrated that they can vaporize the enemy. They fly cargo, re-fueling and intercept planes as well as being crew chiefs, but that's a completely different environment than the sand box.
Women are not inferior, and maybe it would work out just like no one went ballistic on gays when the ban lifted. We might be surprised.
You will have 5 men competing for 1 woman in a squad of 6. This breaks unit cohesion (esprit decor). 1 or more of the males will choose to save the female over a male who is injured worse.
Do not need women in the army, not because they do not correspond to certain points, but because on the shoulders of women is no less important task, which, in their physiological and psychological data, they must decide. Army is a man's world. But nature does not need to interfere. Everybody has their own destiny.
Focusing on the human population is a smart thing to consider. If you have a society with mostly males and few males, allowing women in the military is a ridicoulous and stupid idea. Why? We need to produce. We need to grow. The action of allowing women in the army IN THIS SCENARIO is naturally wrong. It goes against the purpose of life which is to grow and advance. Well, religiously, that is not the purpose of life but i don't want to get into that. ha ha.
Now, what if the scenario was flipped? Mostly women and few men, it would be stupid to allow men in the military.
If we have a stable amount of men and women, then i suggest to allow both sex in the military.
But there is many view to consider. One other view to consider is "personal choice." If i was a woman and there was going to be a war, i would want to fight if i wanted to fight regardless of the male to women ratio.
So basically, the answer to this debate is dependable.
If you have a society with mostly males and few females, allowing women in the military is a ridicoulous and stupid idea.
Well it would be, but I think your premise is incorrect. Prove to me that there are substantially more males than females in the world, and I will agree with you. But until I have reason to believe your claim, I must disagree with you.
Im saying "If" as an hypothetical question. I don't know if we do have a society with mostly males and a few females. It is a scenario. A hypothetical scenario.
There arent more males than females. And also, its not like we are hurting for population levels. We just passed 7 billion globally. Anyone who makes a population argument and doesnt qualify it as only valid for small populations is (im trying to think of a nice way to put it [what is a nice way to say dumb?]) ___.
Even though global population is a problem because we are so many that we are degrading the global system and deleteriously althering the worlds systems, we need to maintain our species.
So dumb. (im not trying to be mean, its just so dumb)
If you have a society with mostly males and few males
Huh?
allowing women in the military is a ridicoulous and stupid idea.
Will you ever learn to spell?
Well, religiously, that is not the purpose of life but i don't want to get into that.
Oh, so you won't get into religion, but you will dive straight into a diatribe on what women are supposed to do with their lives? Who are you to decide how women should lead their lives? As sentient human beings, they have as much right to decide how they can lead their lives as any man does.
If we have a stable amount of men and women, then i suggest to allow both sex in the military.
That is the current state of affairs. According to the United Nations report that I have linked, the world's sex ratio in the year 2000 is 102 males to 100 females. In the USA, the sex ratio is 97 males to 100 females. I think that I can safely say that there is a fair balance of males and females in the world and the USA.
Well, i did spell ridiculous wrong. But to me it doesn't matter because i got the term correctly spelled for the most part.
Oh, so you won't get into religion, but you will dive straight into a diatribe on what women are supposed to do with their lives? Who are you to decide how women should lead their lives? As sentient human beings, they have as much right to decide how they can lead their lives as any man does.
Do you want a growing society? Read my hypothetical scenarios and understand that it would be stupid to allow a shortage of sex into the military. If you don't think it is stupid, then im appalled. It is stupid.
This is like saying that children have the choice to not go to school. Well, yes they have their personal right to do what they want to do in life. However, America will grow dumber in economics and its overall well being. And because im for one wants my country to not be taken over easily by outside forces, it is my personal right to tell children that they should go to school.
You have to look at the view that im seeing. It is ridiculous and retarded to allowing women in the military IF there is a shortage of them in a society. Why? You need women to produce children. You need men as well. And that is why i also proposed the view of mostly women and a shortage of men. If there is a shortage of men and mostly women, it would be stupid to allow all the men in the military.
In this case, i do have the "right" to say how women and men should lead their lives. Because i don't want our society to die. In a way, it is a personal right to have your society grow and not diminish.
But of course, there are other perspectives to look at things. I don't have the right to control women and men because it is THEIR life. It is their personal choice. People do have the personal choice how they live their lives.
It is an "if" scenario. In the end, in a general perspective, everybody has a personal right to tell others what they should do. I believe in that because if what they are doing affects my well being, then yes, it is my personal right.
It affects my well being as in that i want to continue my legacy in this world through grandchildren.
If children didn't went to school, it could possibly affect my personal safety in this world.
Can i ask you one thing? Do you think it is stupid to allow women in the military IF there is a shortage? This is a "if" question. Im not saying there is a shortage of women. Im just proposing hypothetical questions to this debate. And if not, then why?
Read my hypothetical scenarios and understand that it would be stupid to allow a shortage of sex into the military.
Which makes no sense at all. Since when have we allowed a shortage of sexual activity into the military?
However, America will grow dumber in economics and its overall well being.
Is economics the most important subject in the academic sphere? You are myopic to think that way.
And because im for one wants my country to not be taken over easily by outside forces, it is my personal right to tell children that they should go to school.
And it is the right of the children to see you as stupid and choose not to obey what you say.
It is ridiculous and retarded to allowing women in the military IF there is a shortage of them in a society.
The UoB already implicitly assumes that there is a balance in terms of sex ratio. Thus, your hypothesis would violate Occam's razor.
In this case, i do have the "right" to say how women and men should lead their lives.
I believe in that because if what they are doing affects my well being, then yes, it is my personal right.
No, you don't. You have no right to dictate how people should lead their lives. If you think that, you're no different from Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin.
Do you think it is stupid to allow women in the military IF there is a shortage?
No. Simply because if the women have the desire to enter the military, I have no right to stop them. Furthermore, I don't think defending the country is "stupid" in any way. I think that it is a very important responsibility that everyone should shoulder. If you think that entering the military is "retarded" or "stupid" under any circumstance, then you (1) have zero respect for human rights and freedom of the will and (2) have zero patriotism and no respect for those who are patriotic. Shame on you.
Which makes no sense at all. Since when have we allowed a shortage of sexual activity into the military?
I meant "sex" as in male and female. Not "sex" as in sexual activity.
And it is the right of the children to see you as stupid and choose not to obey what you say.
How was this even a dispute? Do you even want your country run by non-intelligent people?
The UoB already implicitly assumes that there is a balance in terms of sex ratio. Thus, your hypothesis would violate Occam's razor.
You clearly don't understand what a hypothetical scenario even means. Im not saying that we do have a shortage of any sex. Im saying "if." You imply that i imply that we do have a shortage of sex.
No, you don't. You have no right to dictate how people should lead their lives. If you think that, you're no different from Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin.
Yes. I do have the right if it affects my personal well being.
No. Simply because if the women have the desire to enter the military, I have no right to stop them. Furthermore, I don't think defending the country is "stupid" in any way. I think that it is a very important responsibility that everyone should shoulder. If you think that entering the military is "retarded" or "stupid" under any circumstance, then you (1) have zero respect for human rights and freedom of the will and (2) have zero patriotism and no respect for those who are patriotic. Shame on you
First off. What is stupid is not defending one's country. What is stupid is defending one's country when there is a shortage. I really think you are being stupid. You are focusing on equality and that is great. I love equality but when there is a shortage, im not 100 percent for equality.
If we lose all the women in our country or in a small society, how are you going to grow? You need children at least to continue society. The same goes for men. Why lose all your men when you need them as well to continue society.
No shame on me. You are blinding yourself with equality. If we have enough men and women, fine. Then i am willing to allow them go in the military. But when there is a shortage? That is a different story.
Even if I were to accept this is what you meant, your position is still illogical to believe. If you say that we have allowed a shortage of males and females into the military, what you are actually saying is that the military is under-staffed. Or that the entire military force is made up of chimeras. Both are complete bullshit.
Do you even want your country run by non-intelligent people?
That does not justify forcing your will on the children. If you do that, you are not respecting their basic human rights.
You clearly don't understand what a hypothetical scenario even means.
I do understand what hypothetical scenarios are. I do not use them very often, even when I am doing philosophy because people often asserted without justification and/or multiply entities beyond necessity. What people who posit hypothetical scenarios are actually doing sometimes is committing logical fallacies under the farce of "hypothetical scenarios". I prefer clarity and rigorous exercises in logic as tools for philosophy and debate.
You imply that i imply that we do have a shortage of sex.
Yes you did. Did you not propose the scenarios where the sex ratio were thoroughly imbalanced?
Yes. I do have the right if it affects my personal well being.
No you don't. I repeat, you have no right to dictate how people should lead their lives.
What is stupid is defending one's country when there is a shortage.
You narcissistic little swine. You obviously are not patriotic. You have no love for your country and your fellow countrymen. Shame on you.
Defending one's country is never a stupid thing to do. Even if there is a shortage, it will be even more important to defend the country from attack. If everyone thought like you, your country will eventually be left with no one to protect it. The 18th Century German philosopher Immanuel Kant said that one should "act according to the maxim that you can, at the same time, will it to be a universal law." Until and unless you can fulfill that condition, your line of thinking is completely immoral.
If we have enough men and women, fine.
We do have a balance, as I have proven. You're an idiot to ignore the evidence. The statistics I quoted disproves of the need for both of your hypothetical scenarios where you posit a gender imbalance in society.
Then i am willing to allow them go in the military.
You are a civilian, not a dictator. You have no right to "allow" anyone to do anything.
On the issue of China's birth rate, that is a result of a completely draconic One Child policy. While that has had negative impacts on population growth, it still does not justify why they should or should not enter the military. In fact, in China, entering the military is considered an honour for the men. Check your facts before debating with me.
Even if I were to accept this is what you meant, your position is still illogical to believe. If you say that we have allowed a shortage of males and females into the military, what you are actually saying is that the military is under-staffed. Or that the entire military force is made up of chimeras. Both are complete bullshit.
What im saying is that if i allow a certain sex in the military that is in shortage of the society, that is a stupid idea. If a society has thirty males and one hundred females, the society would be stupid to allow all the males in the military and a few females. We need males to continue the growth of the society. If we lose all the males to war, then how are those women going to produce children? Of course, America isn't in this situation.
That does not justify forcing your will on the children. If you do that, you are not respecting their basic human rights.
In the basic rights view, you are right. In that view, i have no right to force children what they should do. But if i do not force them to go to school where we are living in a world of terrorism, i won't be doing them a favor for their personal well being. In a sense, i would be wrong to tell them not to go to school. And i would be really stupid to not force them to go to school.
Yes you did. Did you not propose the scenarios where the sex ratio were thoroughly imbalanced?
Yes you are right.
No you don't. I repeat, you have no right to dictate how people should lead their lives.
I agree on some levels and disagree on some levels. Who you want someone burn your house down? Rape your family? Murder your friends? Don't bother calling the police or stopping me because those are actions that imply you do have the right to dictate what he/she should and should not do.
You narcissistic little swine. You obviously are not patriotic. You have no love for your country and your fellow countrymen. Shame on you.
Defending one's country is never a stupid thing to do. Even if there is a shortage, it will be even more important to defend the country from attack. If everyone thought like you, your country will eventually be left with no one to protect it. The 18th Century German philosopher Immanuel Kant said that one should "act according to the maxim that you can, at the same time, will it to be a universal law." Until and unless you can fulfill that condition, your line of thinking is completely immoral.
Narcissism-love for one's self. Who doesn't love themself. I think everybody should have love for themself and for others, of course.
I do love my country. But i am not patriotic enough to be stupid.
My thinking has flaws but so do yours.
Lets say there are 100 males and 30 females. My thinking says that if we allow all the females in the military, and that they all die, the society won't grow. There wouldn't be children produced to continue society. My thinking ASSUMES that they WILL ALL DIE.
Now what if, they don't all die? Then my arguement is invalid.
Now you stated that it is better to fight in the war even if there is a shortage. It will be a good idea, IF you guys win and if you guys still have males and females. But what if you don't have anymore males? Or what if you don't have anymore females? Then your argument is invalid.
If the outcome of any war loses all the men, then how is children going to be produced? The society will die. In that sense, you are not being patriotic either.
We do have a balance, as I have proven. You're an idiot to ignore the evidence. The statistics I quoted disproves of the need for both of your hypothetical scenarios where you posit a gender imbalance in society.
See, you are calling me an idiot when i told you that im proposing hypothetical variables. I do know that we have a balance. Im not ignoring your evidence. You assume that i don't know when i propose these variables.
You are a civilian, not a dictator. You have no right to "allow" anyone to do anything.
On the issue of China's birth rate, that is a result of a completely draconic One Child policy. While that has had negative impacts on population growth, it still does not justify why they should or should not enter the military. In fact, in China, entering the military is considered an honour for the men. Check your facts before debating with me.
Like said, I agree on some levels and disagree on other levels. In America today, if someone wants to become a fashion designer, fine. But if he/she wants to kill my family, no. And in that sense, i feel like i do have the right to dictate.
You are a civilian, not a dictator. You have no right to "allow" anyone to do anything.
Are you dictating me? This makes your arguments about dictating invalid.
We need males to continue the growth of the society. If we lose all the males to war, then how are those women going to produce children?
You idiot. Obviously, we are not saying that IF society had only 30 males, then all of them have to serve in the military. They should merely be given the choice of serving or not. What you are advocating is a complete ban. Furthermore, serving in the military doesn't necessarily mean going to war. Even if it does mean going to war, it doesn't mean that the men are going to die. Your view of the military is so myopic.
But if i do not force them to go to school where we are living in a world of terrorism, i won't be doing them a favor for their personal well being.
What has terrorism got to do with education?
In a sense, i would be wrong to tell them not to go to school.
Assertion without justification.
And i would be really stupid to not force them to go to school.
You are already stupid.
Who you want someone burn your house down? Rape your family? Murder your friends? Don't bother calling the police or stopping me because those are actions that imply you do have the right to dictate what he/she should and should not do.
That is a completely different matter from the debate. You are violating Occam's razor here.
I think everybody should have love for themself and for others, of course.
But what you are advocating is love for yourself and only yourself. You don't love others if you don't defend your country.
I do love my country. But i am not patriotic enough to be stupid.
Are you equating patriotism to stupidity?
My thinking has flaws but so do yours.
So far, I have raised all the flaws in yours, but you have shown where I am wrong. I base my view on facts. It's a fact that the sex ratio in the world population is in balance. It's a fact that the sex ratio in the USA is in balance. You base your views on unasserted, unintelligent and needless hypothetical situations.
My thinking ASSUMES that they WILL ALL DIE.
Obviously the all won't die. It is absurd to think so.
Now you stated that it is better to fight in the war even if there is a shortage. It will be a good idea, IF you guys win and if you guys still have males and females.
Hey idiot. Let me remind you that serving in the military does not immediately imply going into war.
If the outcome of any war loses all the men, then how is children going to be produced?
You are violating Occam's razor again.
You assume that i don't know when i propose these variables.
Since you are not a philosopher and have not studied philosophy, I do have the right to assume you don't know how to propose variables and don't know how to debate.
And in that sense, i feel like i do have the right to dictate.
No, you don't. The fact that you allow a person to be a fashion designer shows that you do NOT have the right to dictate. According to the OED, the word dictate means "To use or practise dictation; to lay down the law, give orders." This implies complete control. If you were to relinquish control in some areas, that is not being dictatorial.
Are you dictating me? This makes your arguments about dictating invalid.
Wow. You are truly stupid. Your argument here is flawed on so many levels. First, you have the wrong conception and definition of "dictate". See above.
Second, this is argumentum ad hominem. And finally, I don't think you have responded to my criticism in context yet.
You idiot. Obviously, we are not saying that IF society had only 30 males, then all of them have to serve in the military. They should merely be given the choice of serving or not. What you are advocating is a complete ban. Furthermore, serving in the military doesn't necessarily mean going to war. Even if it does mean going to war, it doesn't mean that the men are going to die. Your view of the military is so myopic.
I understand that joining the military doesn't mean going to war. And i understand that going to war doesn't mean you are going to die.
Im not an idiot. You are saying about giving men and women the choice of joining the army. However, what if they go to war and they all die? That is a possible to happen. And if all the men die, and if all the women die, then it is dumb to allow the shortage of sex in the army. But of course there are flaws in my argument that i proposed in my last argument.
What has terrorism got to do with education?
Which do you think is easier to rob? A house with idiots or a house filled with intelligent people? But of course, the lack of education is one of many factors that deals with terrorism.
You are already stupid.
I got a B in physics 1. By stating that im "stupid" means that im stupid in "general." Which is what you like to say "a hasty generalisation." And that is not even a dispute.
That is a completely different matter from the debate.
No it is not different from the debate. You stated or implied that no one should dictate anybody. And im saying that you may implied because i don't think you said "no one" should dictate anybody. I know you said that "I" shouldn't dictate anybody. Im just clarifying this.
Are you equating patriotism to stupidity?
In some examples, yes. Lets say for example there is going to be a war. And there is enough people in the military and that we are SURE to win the war. It would be crazy for a patriotic father or patriotic mother of children decide to enlist in the army and eventually go to war because
1. they have children
2. there is no guareentee that they will survive.
You base your views on unasserted, unintelligent and needless hypothetical situations.
I won't say unintelligent and needless. Yes America has a balance of each sex but that is not always guareentee. America may or may not always have a balance of sex. You can't say that the state of existence that we are living in will always be the state of existence. That is why i proposed their hypothetical factors because these factors can happen.
Hey idiot. Let me remind you that serving in the military does not immediately imply going into war.
But what if we do have to go to war? You know Iran, recently on the news, is plotting terrorism attacks on the U.S. soil? (source: CNN). Maybe we might go to war with Iran? I don't know.
You base your view on facts, right. I understand that enlisting in the army doesn't mean you go to war. But that doesn't we might not go to war.
Obviously the all won't die. It is absurd to think so.
You don't know that for sure.
Wow. You are truly stupid. Your argument here is flawed on so many levels. First, you have the wrong conception and definition of "dictate". See above.
Second, this is argumentum ad hominem. And finally, I don't think you have responded to my criticism in context yet.
So you are not at the least bit dictating me that i should not dictate others?
So what if that is a possibility? It still does not undermine the fact that women have their rights.
But of course there are flaws in my argument that i proposed in my last argument.
Well, if you yourself admit that your argument is not cogent, I don't need to waste any more time rebutting you.
Which do you think is easier to rob? A house with idiots or a house filled with intelligent people?
This is a red herring. You have shifted from your original stand of terrorism to robbery.
By stating that im "stupid" means that im stupid in "general."
Yes, you are stupid. Even if you got a B in Physics, it still doesn't mean that you are any good at Physics.
You stated or implied that no one should dictate anybody.
Yes, I did. Check the definition of dictate that I quoted.
a patriotic father or patriotic mother of children decide to enlist in the army
Parents cannot decide to enlist an adult into the army. They enlist themselves. What a pinhead.
And, you analogy is flawed. I didn't say ask if you thought acts of patriotism is stupid. I ask if you thought patriotism itself as a concept is stupid since you have clearly implied that previously.
Yes America has a balance of each sex but that is not always guareentee.
This is another unasserted, unintelligent and needless hypothetical. Unless you have good evidence to prove this, we have to accept that the negation of this premise is true.
You can't say that the state of existence that we are living in will always be the state of existence.
Neither can you say that it will not. Thus, you must have good reasons for suggesting so. Until now, you have provided none, while I have quoted demographic statistics from a report by the United Nations to show that your claim is baseless.
But what if we do have to go to war?
Irrelevant. My point still holds. Entering military service does not immediately imply going into war.
I understand that enlisting in the army doesn't mean you go to war. But that doesn't we might not go to war.
As I have said, unless you have good evidence to support your claim, then your claim is baseless.
You don't know that for sure.
Where is your evidence?
So you are not at the least bit dictating me that i should not dictate others?
Nope. Check the definition of debate. If you have understood it, then this question is useless rhetoric. If you have not, you're an idiot.
What criticism?
Check my previous comment. It is very self-contained.
What is Occam's razor please?
I would need a week's worth of philosophy lectures to explain this point.
So what if that is a possibility? It still does not undermine the fact that women have their rights.
That is where patriotism becomes stupid. If we lose all the men and/or women, how is society going to grow. You are right, women and men still have their rights but there is no evidence to support that.
Prove to me that humans have natural rights?
I will still dictate those women and men. Why? I have the right on some levels. State to me why i don't have the right to dictate others?
Well, if you yourself admit that your argument is not cogent, I don't need to waste any more time rebutting you.
My argument did had flaws but not entirely. And what you said was a red herring. Something that has flaws doesn't mean it is not completely untruthful.
This is a red herring. You have shifted from your original stand of terrorism to robbery.
No. Saying that this is a red herring is a red herring. You couldn't compare what i stated to terrorism? If America is run by stupid ignorant people, then outsides forces will have an easier time of attacking America.
Parents cannot decide to enlist an adult into the army. They enlist themselves. What a pinhead.
That is what i stated. I stated what if the parent's enlisted themselves in the army.
And, you analogy is flawed. I didn't say ask if you thought acts of patriotism is stupid. I ask if you thought patriotism itself as a concept is stupid since you have clearly implied that previously.
Those two are the same thing. Asking me if the concept is stupid means that if i think the "acts" are stupid. By definition, patriotism means an act/action of loving one's own country and willing to sacrafice for it. (google definitions).
This is another unasserted, unintelligent and needless hypothetical. Unless you have good evidence to prove this, we have to accept that the negation of this premise is true.
To offset a balance of sex, that society either needs a terminal spreading disease, huge terror destruction plot, or a huge deadly natural disaster. To think that the balance is always guareentee is stupid because you don't know what lies in the future. Nothing is always guareenteed.
Nope. Check the definition of debate. If you have understood it, then this question is useless rhetoric. If you have not, you're an idiot.
Im not trying to dispute you but i truly believe i have the right to at least dictate rapists and murderers. You said that i don't have the right to dictate others? Well, prove to me why not? I already gave you my reason as rapists and murders affect my well beings. In one sense, i agree with you that i don't have the right. I don't feel like im born to have the right to dictate others. However, when dicatating comes to rapists and murders, them my thinking switches to thinking that i do have the right to dictate.
But you said that patriotism is stupid, not it becomes stupid.
My argument did had flaws but not entirely. And what you said was a red herring. Something that has flaws doesn't mean it is not completely untruthful.
I didn't say that your argument was untruthful, I said that it was not cogent. You do enjoy putting words in my mouth. And you wonder why I think you're an idiot?
You couldn't compare what i stated to terrorism?
No, I couldn't because you haven't given me any reason to. Therefore, your statement about robbery is a red herring.
If America is run by stupid ignorant people, then outsides forces will have an easier time of attacking America.
What does that have to do with women entering the military?
That is what i stated.
No it wasn't.
To think that the balance is always guareentee is stupid because you don't know what lies in the future. Nothing is always guareenteed.
But neither will an imbalance be guaranteed as well. You need proof an you have given none.
i truly believe i have the right to at least dictate rapists and murderers. You said that i don't have the right to dictate others? Well, prove to me why not?
No, you don't. Dictate refers to complete control by law. I don't think you have that right. And then again, you believe you have the right. You don't know. I need to other reason than that to prove you wrong.
In one sense, i agree with you that i don't have the right. I don't feel like im born to have the right to dictate others.
Well, you are contradicting yourself again.
However, when dicatating comes to rapists and murders, them my thinking switches to thinking that i do have the right to dictate.
Even if I were to agree with you, and I don't, where are we to draw the line?
I don't have evidence to back up my hypothetical scenarios.
*"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan.
I didn't say that your argument was untruthful, I said that it was not cogent. You do enjoy putting words in my mouth. And you wonder why I think you're an idiot?
I never did put words in your mouth.
But you said that patriotism is stupid, not it becomes stupid.
When patriotism becomes stupid, it is stupid.
What does that have to do with women entering the military?
Nothing. This is one of a few off topic discussion.
No it wasn't
Yes it was. I stated that if the mother or father enlisted in the army, that would be a stupid idea. I wasn't being clear and i should had said that if the mother or father enlisted THEMSELVES in the army, that would be a stupid idea. By not putting the word, you thought i meant that the mother and/or father was the one's enlisting other people other than themselves in the army.
Steve Wilkos is a talk show host. And he interviews with bad people in his opinion: domestic abusers, pedophiles, etc. He met this one person who said that judging others are wrong. And Steve responded that when you have children, you have to judge to protect them.
That is similiar to dictating at least people who are rapists and murderers. I may have not shown it, but if i wanted to protect my country, i will fight regardless. For the most part i don't have the right to dictate others and tell them what to do. I don't think i would read Hegel's book. I just don't think i feel like i should dictate them. However, when it comes to my children, i will protect them. Dictating child sex offenders especially would feel like an absolute moral right.
I believe dictating should be allowed when it is against immoral actions.
there isnt much difference between male and female populations.
We dont need to grow as a population
Bad scenario - i.e. not applicable.
Life has no intrinsic purpose - teleological thinking is unjustified.
...
The answer to this debate could depend on variables (on an abstract theoretical level where hypotheses were varied like you described) however, the debate is not dependent on abstract variables. The debate is about current numbers and current statuses, etc... To say that this argument depends on variables is technically true, but it is like saying that breathing is optional, i could technically hook my body up to an oxygenation machine and never have to breath, but is that really how we want to predicate all arguments. Nearly all arguments can be said to depend on the variables. why do this?
The purpose of life, non religiously, is to grow and produce. You see the purpose subliminally shown in history textbooks. Cleary you seem as an intelligent person by the way you type. Can you withstand days not going to college or work? I can't because i have this secret need to grow and produce. I have this urge to not waste my life and make it useful on my own terms. I don't want to be a slacker. And i can become a slacker now because i am fortunate.
I don't think my scenario's are bad. They clearly prove why allowing the shortage of sex in the military is a stupid idea.
Why do this? Well just like you said, nearly all arguments depend on variables. I want to propose those variables. There are many views to consider. One view may propose an "against" side. And another view may propose a "For" side.
---------------------------------------
And i am talking about small populations. Or population with a ridiculous ratios.
I can definitely respect that you were trying to express that the debate is dependent on the variables. I appreciate the compliment as well. You also seem to be an intelligent person, understanding that the character of our existence is defined by our conditions is not a frequent realization. Too many people think in terms of overly simple and static conditions. I am like you, having a hard time withstanding days of not going to college or learning or working etc..., but with regards to the tendency to grow as an individual, this doesn’t necessarily apply to the macro-organism that is our global civilization insofar as ethical prescriptions go. And the observable tendency to procreate and expand doesn’t imply an ethical prescription to do so either. This is known as - is implies ought - reasoning. Life does have the tendency to grow and produce in various ways but it also has the tendency to come into varying degrees of balance with other populations within its environment. It is this point which I feel is most significant insofar as imposing necessary limitations on population growth as well as resource consumption. Humans have the capacity to limit our actions by developing our awareness of the environment and from that awareness recognizing the necessary limits.
I apologize if my initial response was less than friendly, i get frustrated on these sites because there are so many people that have lots of opinions and little reason and knowledge to back them up with. I probably shouldn’t visit these sites, they make me a little bit moody lol :). I really care about fairness, equality, justice, the priority of reason and knowledge, and epistemological validity to arguments, but sometimes i think i care too much.
If you are interested, and I assume you might be since your user name is - TheThinker, I actually have an idea that relates to this discussion, about the dynamic tendency within variables. If you are curious, Facebook-search The Order of Harmony, and Read the "Philosophical Theory." It is something that i have been working on for a few years off and on. Up to you, not sure if you like philosophical theory or not. I will warn that it is a bit dense and some parts are not fully grounded yet in terms of abstract ideas and it is also not finished. However, i do need feedback so if you are at all curious give it a read.
Thank you. You put a smile on my face. ha ha. Let me be honest, there is this one person that is calling me stupid and an idiot. So now when i see disputes, it feels like an personal attack to an extent where the level shouldn't be taken. And now everytime i debate, i feel somewhat sad. And i fear what that person is going to say next. It is not worth it but im staying. However, i do respect the truth. The truth is hurtful but i rather recieve the truth even though i hate it. If someone thinks im being stupid or wrong, i would like them to say "I don't want to hurt your feelings but..." And you did that indirectly to another person. I think you said that you didn't want to sound mean but what i stated is dumb. I can respect that.
I apologize too. My hypothetical scenarios doesn't have actual evidence to support it. I just use my common sense. In my common sense, if we have no males and just females, the society won't grow. But there are lots of restrictions such there can't be any adoption of children. And lets be honest here, it is stupid of me not to put actual evidence. I was hoping people would read my scenario and say...."it is reasonable but unprobable of happening today."
In America today, my scenarios become invalid. America do have a balance of males and females. And the ratio is balance enough to even allow females in the army. And males as well.
And i can understand how you can be frustrated. Im glad you said it so now i know. And it is reasonable.
If you are interested, and I assume you might be since your user name is - TheThinker, I actually have an idea that relates to this discussion, about the dynamic tendency within variables. If you are curious, Facebook-search The Order of Harmony, and Read the "Philosophical Theory." It is something that i have been working on for a few years off and on. Up to you, not sure if you like philosophical theory or not. I will warn that it is a bit dense and some parts are not fully grounded yet in terms of abstract ideas and it is also not finished. However, i do need feedback so if you are at all curious give it a read.
Can't read it right now, but i am interested...if what im feeling is correct. ha ha.
