The Wymyn Who Missed Biology Class
Feminism argues for sameness, not fairness, notes Helena Cronin.
via @CHSommers, who pointed out in a tweet that Cronin is "an outlier. In the academy the extreme is the mean."
The Wymyn Who Missed Biology Class
Feminism argues for sameness, not fairness, notes Helena Cronin.
via @CHSommers, who pointed out in a tweet that Cronin is "an outlier. In the academy the extreme is the mean."
She has some very good points, as far as she goes; but I was surprised to hear her mention fire fighting as one of the kinds of jobs feminists mostly don't look at because they wouldn't want them.
To me, firefighting is a good example of a job, the performance of which has been harmed by feminism. Around 1970, feminists successfully got most of our country's fire and police departments to stop requiring hard upper-body strength tests for employment because women couldn't pass them.
The main result is that today most firefighters, both male and female, are no longer capable of carrying an average adult out of a burning building. So if you have a fire you're much more likely to die -- just so that a small percentage of women, macho ones who have something to prove, can be fire fighters. I believe it was not worth the continuing cost in victims' lives just to eliminate that last fraction of a percent of inequality. So let's bring the strength tests back.
jdgalt at November 27, 2014 9:09 PM
Sadly, jdgalt, similar standards are being (not so?) quietly reduced for infantry combat positions.
Why? so they can find out that putting wymyn in front line infantry combat is a horribly bad idea. ISIS must be licking their chops at the prospect of capturing such women. And turning them into brides for their men.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 28, 2014 8:53 AM
All NFL and NBA teams should be 50% women. All starting line-ups for all NFL and NBA games should be 50% women.
I demand total equality !
Nick at November 28, 2014 8:58 AM
The main result is that today most firefighters, both male and female, are no longer capable of carrying an average adult out of a burning building. So if you have a fire you're much more likely to die -- just so that a small percentage of women, macho ones who have something to prove, can be fire fighters. I believe it was not worth the continuing cost in victims' lives just to eliminate that last fraction of a percent of inequality. So let's bring the strength tests back.
Posted by: jdgalt at November 27, 2014 9:09 PM
As much as I sympathize with your concerns, I think that within fifty years, strength will be superseded by technology. Ditch digging went that way, as will fire fighting.
The bigger threat in the military, is the almost total elimination of any kind of intelligence requirement in order to be a leader, to satisfy diversity quotas.
Dumb officers of all ranks get far more people killed and hurt than any lack of physical strength.
There is an illustration of this problem in "Generation Kill"
Isab at November 28, 2014 9:56 AM
Isab said: As much as I sympathize with your concerns, I think that within fifty years, strength will be superseded by technology.
Re: The lower standards for women in the military that have always existed and will be required in the combat arms to allow women entry into those positions.
You can bomb it. You can napalm it. You can fire missiles at it. You can drive tanks across it. You can fly drones over it. You can even nuke it.
You do not control it until a 19 year old with a rifle is standing on it.
That has always been true, and it will never change.
The WolfMan at November 28, 2014 11:10 AM
You do not control it until a 19 year old with a rifle is standing on it.
That has always been true, and it will never change.
Posted by: The WolfMan at November 28, 2014 11:10 AM
This is sort of a straw man. Because if you are a 19 year old standing out there, alone, the likely outcome is being picked off by a sniper.
The person who decides how to get to that piece of ground, and hold it, are getting far more people killed,than the 19 year old, man or woman who can run ten miles in full LBE.
Infantry went mech, and Cav got rid of their horses for a reason.
They mechanized the loading and firing of artillery rounds for the same reason. That dumb gun bunny who can do nothing more than hoist an artillery round and load it into the breech has no purpose on the modern battle field.
Same is true of the lone guy with a rifle.
Nothing is more vulnerable than foot infantry in a battle, and all that physical strength wont save you from a well placed mortar, road side bomb, or that Sniper up on a hill half a mile away.
At near 60, I cant outrun or out lift many 19 year olds, and neither can that two star up at command headquarters,
but I can out shoot and out think 98 percent of them.
Isab at November 28, 2014 12:26 PM
At Isab
What WolfMan meant was air power alone will not win the battles or the war. To win AND control the ground, you need boots on the ground. That is a fact.
To be factually correct, ONE 19 year old with a rifle can be killed with by ONE sniper. To control the ground, you need 25,000 to 40,000 enlisted soldiers with a command and control structure consisting of officers ranging from lietenant through general officer and all ranging in ages from 18 through 55. Add more soldiers if needed.
Nick at November 28, 2014 1:17 PM
Wow. So much wrong here, so little time to unpack it.
Isab said: This is sort of a straw man. Because if you are a 19 year old standing out there, alone, the likely outcome is being picked off by a sniper.
And when exactly is the infantry standing alone? 19 year olds make up teams, which make up squads, which make up platoons, which make up companies, which make up battalions, which make up brigades, which make up divisions, which make up corps, which make up armies. That is the point, Isab. It all builds up from, and breaks down to the 19 year old. Its like..."a figure of speech," we sometimes call it.
A 19 year old can also be given the Dim Mak by a ninja, or drop dead of acute appendicitus. The point is that warfare is about taking and holding key terrain. Key terrain is taken, and held, by brute force. No amount of technology will supplant the final necessity of the soldier at the range of hand to hand combat. The phalanx, if you will. And the phalanx is only as strong as its weakest member.
Isab said: The person who decides how to get to that piece of ground, and hold it, are getting far more people killed,than the 19 year old, man or woman who can run ten miles in full LBE.
That is true. Political correctness is killing the military. It's nothing new. During the My Lai trial, it was pointed out that at West Point, the top graduates got to pick their branch assignments. The lowest graduates got sent to the infantry, where the rubber (so to speak) meets the road. Shouldn't the infantry, where lives are taken and lost, be where the best and brightest go? I would say, and a lot of people said, yes. Absolutely.
Instead, the solution seems to have been sending more dummies, on the grounds that if a white male dummy can do it, so can a (fill in the blank) dummy. Problem identified and instead of solved, politically exploited.
David Hackworth wrote "About Face" after he resigned in disgust over the conduct of Viet Nam, and everything he has said about the corporatization of the Army in particular, and the military in general, has come true. It is still well worth reading.
Isab said: Infantry went mech, and Cav got rid of their horses for a reason.
Yes. because mechanized vehicles can carry the infantry farther and faster, where they can then dismount and engage the enemy in close combat. Spent nine years in mech infantry, Isab. Its just a mobile conex box to carry you to battle and, in the case of the Bradley, provide fire support. Bradleys can roll right onto the battlefield with you. You still have to get out and fight. Spent some time in the light infantry. Did just as much humping in the mech infantry, just drove further to do it.
Isab said: They mechanized the loading and firing of artillery rounds for the same reason. That dumb gun bunny who can do nothing more than hoist an artillery round and load it into the breech has no purpose on the modern battle field.
Spent much time around the field artillery, Isab? The Paladin M109A6 has automatic loading. The majority, I mean the vast majority of artillery is still "dumb gun bunnies" as you put it. From the self propelled 155's to the air dropped 105 mm guns, insert round by hand, pull cord, and repeat.
I've been supported by artillery. Never by Paladins. Don't know where you are getting this "has no place on the modern battlefield" business, because it just isn't true.
Isab said: Nothing is more vulnerable than foot infantry in a battle, and all that physical strength wont save you from a well placed mortar, road side bomb, or that Sniper up on a hill half a mile away.
1. Who are you telling?
2. What is your point?
If your point is that physical strength does not provide you an edge in battle, its not really worth rebutting.
If your point is that even the most well trained, experienced and conditioned soldier can still be killed by a stray fragment in the last second of the last battle of the war, I don't see that as a compelling argument to forsake training, conditioning or reward experience with leadership positions.
Some guy named Buster Douglas whipped Mike Tyson. So I guess there isn't any reason for boxers to train so hard, right? Or is it a refutation of the system used to rank contenders? Proof that any tubbaguts can beat any heavyweight champion?
Isab said: At near 60, I cant outrun or out lift many 19 year olds, and neither can that two star up at command headquarters,
but I can out shoot and out think 98 percent of them.
What is your point here, other than armchair chest beating? Are you saying you have as much business on a battlefield in the infantry as anyone else? Can you march endless miles for days at a time with 100 pounds of equipment with very little sleep, sporadic food (if any), and live for weeks in a muddy hole with bleeding hemorrhoids (for some reason I remember the bleeding 'roids - didn't see that on the recruiting poster), endure the hardships of battle, and still perform like that? While Basic Rifle Marksmanship is still (and God, let us hope remains) a foundational imfantry skill, a guy that can barely qualify but doesn't break down physically before he even gets to battle is going to shoot more bad guys that Annie Freaking Oakley on profile in the rear.
Next time you go out shooting, just for the heck of it, stay up all night, don't eat anything for breakfast. Then go for a 5 mile run. Finish your run, immediately pick up your firearm, and start shooting. Thats just an inkling of what we are talking about. Far more important than the ability to bench press 300 pounds is the ability to endure. Women just do not have the physical ability to endure. Some do fine in very limited engagements, with men close by to support them. But they fade quickly.
Maybe you are a physical exception. Maybe you will be able to do perform as well. If you are, get thee up from where you now sit and report to the science department of the local university so we can study you. The point is you don't have to, and neither does the two star up at command headquarters.
An infantry soldier at war has to be prepared to endure anything your imagination can come up with. Many strong men have not been able to, and have died.
The overwhelming majority of women can't even meet the requirements to begin the training, much less serve in an infantry squad. If they could, the standards for physical fitness would have always been the same.
There is a link below. Please note two things - the differing standards for men and women, and the fact that the physical standards for 19 year old female are the same as those for a 40 year old male.
Its not lack of heart, or desire. Its freaking physical science. And if you think "technology" will ever replace that, well...I'm talked out, looking forward to the day I retire, and for just that reason, will stop caring the moment I do.
http://www.apft-standards.com/
"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.
But thats the way to bet."
- Murphy
P.S. Murphy was infantry.
The WolfMan at November 28, 2014 1:47 PM
Wolfman Says:
"No amount of technology will supplant the final necessity of the soldier at the range of hand to hand combat."
I don't see how you can possibly make this claim.
"No amount of technology"??? Really???
You're perspective may have been true yesterday, it may be true today... but I do not see how you can confidently state that in 100 years time the level of technology available will not make human face to face, hand to hand combat essentially obsolete.
We are already getting to the point where fighter pilots aren't as necessary anymore with the advent of drones.
All of your arguments with regard to endurance and weariness actually come out in favor of robotic combatants over human ones when/if we develop that capability.
To suggest that no amount of technology will ever supplant the infantry seems like a statement you can't really make.
If you are talking about the foreseeable future I agree with you. If you are talking more in the abstract I think you are probably wrong.
Artemis at November 28, 2014 2:30 PM
That was actually a Damon Runyon quote.
Conan the Grammarian at November 28, 2014 2:32 PM
Who are you telling?
2. What is your point?
My point was, that upper body strength, and athleticism are overrated as military assets. They are only two small things out of many other factors that go into a successful operation.
I know what the APFT standards are. I am former Army, seven years in the FA.
They are a minumum standard, and a poor measure of combat readiness.
Designed to test a base line level of fitness, that certainly would be totally insufficient to get you through Ranger school, but would probably be overkill for your unit IT guy.
Being smart and cool under pressure, are far far more useful skills.
The Army long ago became fascinated with how fast someone could run, and threw all their eggs into that basket because it was cheap, and easy to measure.
If they really cared about strength, they would put everyone is supervised weight training.
In fact, about that same time, teaching people how to really shoot went out the window except for snipers, because that sort of training was expensive and difficult.
At the same time, the IQ requirements were dumbed down for being an officer, because too many minorities were being excluded from the officer pool on this basis.
The Marine Corps hasn't been quite as stupid about some of these things. Their mission is a little more focused, perhaps because they leave most of the logistics, and support services to the Navy.
I think the firefighters got hung up on the dead carry for the same reason. It was something way more men than women could do well. So it became the criteria that a *good firefighter* needed to be measured by.
But the truth is most firefighters will never ever have to dead carry anyone down a flight of stairs, and if it is some three hundred pound shut in, (the person most likely to need rescuing) , even that big strong guy wont manage it.
Personally I think handling the hoses is a bigger issue, and if a man or woman cant do that they have no business being a firefighter.
I am all in favor of one standard physical test, and one standard core knowledge test for admission to each MOS.
If you make it too difficult you will lose too many men, and if you make it too easy, you will end up with both men and women who cant handle the job.
Then recognize that all of these physical skills decline with age, and just because a firefighter could do something at 20, is no reason to insist that he is still qualified and capable when he cant do it anymore at 40.
There was a woman cadet first captain at West Point a few years back who could outrun, out carry, and outlast every man in her company. She was picking up their gear and carrying it for them on forced matches,
I can think of a lot of reasons that women should not be in the infantry, but for this particular individual, strength wasn't one of those arguments.
Isab at November 28, 2014 2:56 PM
"I don't see how you can possibly make this claim."
Well, well. You don't huh. What a dumb shit you are.
Dave B at November 28, 2014 2:58 PM
"If you are talking more in the abstract I think you are probably wrong."
Getting weak in your superiority by using probably. Bravo.
Dave B at November 28, 2014 3:02 PM
"If you are talking more in the abstract I think you are probably wrong."
Getting weak in your superiority by using probably. Bravo.
Posted by: Dave B at November 28, 2014 3:02 PM
Got an argument or not Dave? All I see is an ad hominem.
Isab at November 28, 2014 5:06 PM
"All I see is an ad hominem."
Oh. Let me see. Do I care what you see? Uh, no.
Dave B at November 28, 2014 8:49 PM
Nordic genes, British accent, rational; I love this woman. Good point on the idea that fairness doesn't exactly mean equality in all endeavors. How to express that fairness is a challenge.
Canvasback at November 28, 2014 10:09 PM
"...but I do not see how you can confidently state that in 100 years time the level of technology available will not make human face to face, hand to hand combat essentially obsolete."
Hopefully that happens. If so, then in 100 years time they can reasonably start relaxing the physical standards.
Ken R at November 28, 2014 10:14 PM
So, let me get this straight... Isab, etc. argue FOR lower standards, because... Technology!
Carry this to its logical extension: you can lower mental standards, too, for the same reason. Somehow, field capability will never be necessary because someone in a chair somewhere cares.
Nonsense.
Radwaste at November 28, 2014 10:20 PM
Dave B,
I'm kind of curious what your argument is as well.
Your argument appears to be empty claims that I am a "dumb shit" and that I am "weak in my superiority".
Are you also of the belief that at no point in future technological innovation that human based infantry will ever become obsolete?
That you or anyone else here can claim such utter confidence about an unknown technological future is the height of stupidity and arrogance.
Let's take a moment and consider for one second how many individuals would have been capable of predicting the modern state of warfare back in 1914.
I'm going to go ahead and predict that pretty much no one would have envisioned nuclear weapons... intercontinental missiles... autonomous drones... space based satellite surveillance... supersonic aircraft... stealth technology... etc...
The list goes on and on.
The technological state of the modern military is so far beyond what anyone would have predicted back in 1914 that we should be extremely wary of anyone claiming predictive power regarding the technological capabilities of the military in the far future.
We can make reasonable predictions in this are on a ~10 year time scale, but beyond that people are talking out of their ass.
That I recognize the limitations of our knowledge in this area isn't a weakness.
As usual I am just calling people on their bullshit.
Artemis at November 29, 2014 2:26 AM
Wow. Now we have essentially a claim that only the state-of-the-art in warfare will ever be useful.
Why do so many people feel qualified to discuss military strategy when their experience consists of sitting in the dark with popcorn?
Radwaste at November 29, 2014 3:22 AM
Radwaste,
You need a refresher in reading comprehension skills.
Nowhere have I made such a claim... not even remotely.
Please read again... my entire position is that we cannot reliably predict what the state of technology will be like for the military into the far future.
How you go from me saying that we cannot make such a prediction to me actually making a prediction is mind boggling.
All of this was born out of Wolfman's original claim that:
"No amount of technology will supplant the final necessity of the soldier at the range of hand to hand combat."
My point is that he cannot possibly know this with any certainty.
How can anyone know what "no amount of technology" will ultimately be able to achieve?
He simply cannot know this.
That is my only point and it appears to be going over peoples heads (as usual).
Artemis at November 29, 2014 4:01 AM
Radwaste,
I'm going to give you the opportunity here to demonstrate that you are not a complete and utter nitwit.
Let's actually unpack what the following statement means:
"No amount of technology will supplant the final necessity of the soldier at the range of hand to hand combat."
This means that no matter now advanced we might become, no matter how much mastery over the fundamental forces of physics and biology we obtain that for some reason hand to hand combat by human soldiers will be a necessary and vital component when it comes to military action.
That notion is profoundly silly.
Are we anywhere near that level of technological sophistication today?... No.
Will we be there in 10 years?... No.
However that statement isn't bounded by time, it is completely unconstrained.
It says "no amount of technology", which suggests that even if we were to create completely autonomous self replicating robotic infantry combatants... somehow hand to hand combat by human beings would still be a viable military strategy.
This type of claim is no different than someone from ancient Greece claiming that no amount of technological advancement will supplant horse drawn chariots on the battle field.
The reality is that at some as of yet to be determined level of technological sophistication, human soldiers will be a liability and not an asset on the front lines.
This isn't about me discussing military strategy, it is about me recognizing the reality inherent to technological advancement.
Pretty much any time someone has predicted that a specific job cannot be replaced we have found a way to replace that job function.
I'm not saying what will or will not come to pass because I can't see the far future.
What I am saying is that no one else here can see the far future either so it would be best to constrain the conversation to areas where people can actually back up what they are saying with facts.
Exactly what set of facts would demonstrate that "No amount of technology will supplant the final necessity of the soldier at the range of hand to hand combat."?
My contention is that no such set of facts can exist because it is all about the future.
If you or Wolfman can demonstrate to me beyond a reasonable doubt that you can see the future then maybe I can take you seriously on this point.
Otherwise you can just back off on those kinds of statements.
Artemis at November 29, 2014 4:27 AM
Wolfman says: "No amount of technology will supplant the final necessity of the soldier at the range of hand to hand combat."
Person who knows future says: "I don't see how you can possibly make this claim."
The fact that future person can't see how Wolfman can make the claim is lame. He just made it.
Future person says: "You're perspective may have been true yesterday, it may be true today... but I do not see how you can confidently state that in 100 years time the level of technology available will not make human face to face, hand to hand combat essentially obsolete."
Well future person, Wolfman's perspective may be true for the rest of mankind. Who made you infallible. Hell, the world as we know it may be gone in 100 years.
Future person says: "That you or anyone else here can claim such utter confidence about an unknown technological future is the height of stupidity and arrogance."
Silly future person. You admitted infantry has always been here up until today and the near future. How do you know it won't be here until the end of time for man. Your utter confidence opinion applies to you. Funny that.
Expanded version of my two earlier posts. I thought it was obvious. Obviously not.
Dave B at November 29, 2014 2:22 PM
Dave B Says:
"Person who knows future says: "I don't see how you can possibly make this claim.""
You are clearly a moron of the highest order.
When someone makes the statement "I don't see how you can possibly make this claim", that is not the equivalent of "I know the future with certainty".
Instead it is a statement which implies that NONE of us can know the future with that kind of certainty.
That you have essentially deduced the opposite meaning from my statement suggests that your literacy level is severely lacking.
"Well future person, Wolfman's perspective may be true for the rest of mankind. Who made you infallible. Hell, the world as we know it may be gone in 100 years."
This is true... hence you are proving my very point.
We simply do not know what the world will be like in 100 years time (or even 50 years time for that matter).
That is why I said that Wolfman cannot possibly say what will or will not come to pass with regard to technological progress.
You are quite literally taking my very own argument and telling me that I am the one not understanding something.
You are saying exactly what I am saying and acting like you are teaching me something.
"Your utter confidence opinion applies to you."
The only thing I have claimed utter confidence about is the uncertainty of the future.
That is kind a bizarre thing for you to then get your panties in a knot over.
Let me simplify this for you so that maybe you can understand what is going on here:
1 - Wolfman makes a definitive statement about the future
2 - I claim that neither he nor anyone else can make such a claim about the far future because it is uncertain what will happen
3 - You jump in and essentially say... well how can you be so damned confident that we can't be confident about predictions of the far future... CHECKMATE!!!
You are an idiot Dave B.
If you can't see the difference between step 1 and step 2 then you are beyond help.
Artemis at November 29, 2014 6:54 PM
It says "no amount of technology", which suggests that even if we were to create completely autonomous self replicating robotic infantry combatants... somehow hand to hand combat by human beings would still be a viable military strategy.
This type of claim is no different than someone from ancient Greece claiming that no amount of technological advancement will supplant horse drawn chariots on the battle field.
And yet even today we soldiers are taught hand to hand fighting techniques, just as we were back when we had horse drawn chariots, just like we were before we had the fucking horses.
Because sometimes even in todays era of nuclear weapons, and depleted uranium rail guns, and drones being piloted from half a world away the only way in is on foot, or your weapon jams and the enemy is within arms length and all you have is your hands.
“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
lujlp at November 30, 2014 12:37 AM
"And yet even today we soldiers are taught hand to hand fighting techniques, just as we were back when we had horse drawn chariots, just like we were before we had the fucking horses."
Training builds confidence, and physical conditioning. It doesn't mean that we necessarily expect it to be used.
We also still send people to Airborne school, a battle tactic last used successfully for any type of combat insertion during World War II.
Back in the 80's the brass knew it was an incredible waste of time and money, for everyone but the Rangers, and Special Forces, but tradition made it hard to kill.
I would love to see the statistics on hand to hand combat in Afghanistan for example. Bet it has been close to nil.
There is an incredibly naive, and romanticized vision of military tactics, logistics and weaponry displayed on this board.
It reminds me of the feminists screeching about rape..
Isab at November 30, 2014 8:25 AM
US Special Operations Command troops moving about Afghanistan against Taliban forces used horses and combined 21st Century and 18th Century military tactics. Good thing the US Army still studies "obsolete" methods of warfare.
http://www.amazon.com/Horse-Soldiers-Extraordinary-Victory-Afghanistan/dp/1416580522
You can never say definitively what tactics will be used on any field of battle. When Capt Daniel Gallery decided to capture a Nazi u-boat in order to seize code books and other vital intelligence, boarding parties had been out of use in naval warfare for decades. So, sailors on the USS Pillsbury developed tactics based on older ones they'd read about and boarded the U-505 after the Germans tried to scuttle it. The U-505 today sits in Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry and Gallery remains one of the few (if not the only) modern US Navy officers to issue the order, "Away All Boarding Parties."
Training in hand-to-hand combat gives soldiers confidence that as the enemy closes with them, they can handle it. Else, like the colonial militia when the Redcoats got close, they would break ranks and flee the approaching enemy. So, even if it is never used, it has a purpose.
Besides, sometimes you run out of bullets.
Mostly, but not entirely.
Several stories are out there about savage hand-to-hand fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Conan the Grammarian at November 30, 2014 1:53 PM
Training in hand-to-hand combat doesn't mean that modern Marine could defeat an armored knight in hand-to-hand combat, something the knight would have trained in for a lifetime. It just means the Marine would be tried to handle it if an enemy closed with him.
Different times, different needs, different training.
http://www.quora.com/How-well-are-modern-troops-in-todays-military-trained-in-the-use-of-melee-weapons-and-would-they-be-able-to-hold-their-own-against-a-medieval-knight
Conan the Grammarian at November 30, 2014 1:55 PM
lujlp Says:
"“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers"
Really???
You are quoting science fiction in order to discuss the potential reality of future warfare???
We might as well start a conversation about how targeting computers will become obsolete because people will begin to use the force instead.
Clearly my actual point has gone over your head if you are going to resort to using scifi to back up your position.
The point is this:
We are already seeing the utility of hand-to-hand combat diminish on the battlefield compared to the past.
This trend has been fairly continuous and has been the result of technological advancement.
As a result we cannot be certain if at some point in the future technology will reach a point where a human soldier is a liability compared to the other options available.
I do not know what the future will bring... but neither do you... and the trend doesn't appear to back up your part of the argument.
The only one here who appears to be talking any sense when it comes to the military and how it functions is Isab.
Artemis at November 30, 2014 6:16 PM
Conan the Grammarian Says:
When will you learn that I tend to choose my words very carefully?
I have explained this to you numerous times and yet you always end up tossing strawman arguments my way that distort what I have said.
Here was my claim:
"This type of claim is no different than someone from ancient Greece claiming that no amount of technological advancement will supplant horse drawn chariots on the battle field."
Please notice how I didn't say "horses"... I specifically said "horse drawn chariots".
These are not the same things.
So when you say this:
"US Special Operations Command troops moving about Afghanistan against Taliban forces used horses and combined 21st Century and 18th Century military tactics. Good thing the US Army still studies "obsolete" methods of warfare."
It has no baring on my argument at all because US Special Ops didn't use horse drawn chariots.
Just like horse mounted police officers are still useful when it comes to riot control, horses themselves still have niche utility for the military.
However they are not used to pull chariots which had a very different application even antiquity than simply riding a horse with a saddle.
I was very careful not to claim that horses were entirely obsolete.
Horse drawn chariots on the otherhand are.
Artemis at November 30, 2014 6:29 PM
I think it would be useful to define terms here a bit so that we don't get drawn into a game of semantics.
The word obsolete does not imply that something is NEVER used under even the most extreme circumstances.
Instead the word obsolete implies that one traditional mode of doing things has by and large been replaced by another superior method of achieving the same thing.
For example, if I were to say that the slide rule is obsolete due to the advent of electronic calculators... this does not mean that no one on earth uses slide rules anywhere.
I does mean that by and large the use of the slide rule has been supplanted by the far more common use of the electronic calculator, which also happens to be faster and more powerful.
That there may be collections of slide rule enthusiasts who swear by the use of that now antiquated instrument wouldn't suddenly make the classification of the slide rule as obsolete in some sense erroneous.
It is troublesome that some here are using the same poor logic to twist and turn to somehow make the use of horses and hand-to-hand combat in modern warfare appear more conventional than it actually is.
Artemis at November 30, 2014 6:41 PM
Wow, Artemis/Orion, you are second to no one in your ability to pick a nit.
Okay, Artemis/Orion, I'll play along. Since we're only to respond to EXACT arguments, let me point out that you failed to adhere to that standard in rebutting Wolfman's statement.
Wolfman posted, "No amount of technology will supplant the final necessity of the soldier at the range of hand to hand combat." And you replied, "...no different than someone from ancient Greece claiming that no amount of technological advancement will supplant horse drawn chariots on the battle field."
Wolfman was talking about a specific combat range and the inability of technology to supplant soldiers at that range. You were talking in general about modernizing ancient weapons of war - apples-to-oranges. If you'd compared Wolfman's argument to an ancient Greek saying technology would never supplant the chariot for mobile warfare, you'd at least have been arguing apples-to-crabapples, but you didn't.
You are one seriously brittle personality.
Conan the Grammarian at November 30, 2014 8:39 PM
Conan,
There is nothing "nitpicky" about my insistence that if you are going to criticize my position that you do it fairly.
You have demonstrated a repeated history of twisting words, taking me out of context, and performing all manner of other semantic games in order to simply "prove me wrong" about one silly thing or another.
This isn't a singular event on your part, it is part of a repeated pattern of behavior for you.
I happen to welcome criticism so long as it is fair.
My criticism of Wolfmans point was isolated to only his baseless conjecture about the future for which he can not possibly offer any evidence.
Your criticism of me is based upon a false description of my position and then as usual claiming that somehow it is a "good thing" that the modern military doesn't think as I do.
The fundamental problem with your argument is that I never said anything about the use of horses in general.
I specifically was talking about horse drawn chariots, which in case you haven't noticed we do not use any longer.
That you are trying to muddy the waters and transform my argument from horse drawn chariots into horses in general is dishonest of you.
Artemis at November 30, 2014 9:16 PM
Conan,
One additional point since we are discussing the notion of being "nitpicky" between you and I.
Here is what I stated:
"...no different than someone from ancient Greece claiming that no amount of technological advancement will supplant horse drawn chariots on the battle field."
And here is your critique of it:
"If you'd compared Wolfman's argument to an ancient Greek saying technology would never supplant the chariot for mobile warfare, you'd at least have been arguing apples-to-crab apples, but you didn't."
So let's get this straight there champ... if I had replaced the words "on the battle field" with "for mobile warfare"... then you wouldn't have gotten your panties in a wad???
What the fuck did you thing horse drawn chariots where used for on the battlefield by the ancient Greeks if not for "mobile warfare"???
This is exactly what I mean about you playing stupid semantic games and then having the unmitigated gall to call me nitpicky.
This is no different than the time we were discussing inflation and I used the CPI for which you started losing your shit only to later on say that you use CPI for inflation all the time... but you just wanted to see if I would provide the same justification you would for using it.
All in all your arguments with me are never honest, they are always manipulative and based upon cherry picking and twisting language.
I am far from nitpicky when it comes to you... I have just grown weary of your particular brand of bull shit.
Artemis at November 30, 2014 9:25 PM
"I have just grown weary of your particular brand of bull shit."
But isn't it true that a rancher's unique brand helps him/her keep track of the herd of cattle, but the bullshit on your boot is mostly the same in North Dakota, Scotland, Argentina and Russia, regardless of the brand?
Jason S. at December 1, 2014 9:10 AM
Do we know if Artemis is a boy or a girl yet? Whether he/she knows how to drive? How old he/she is? The explanation for his/her tortured social signaling?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 1, 2014 9:52 AM
Artemis/Orion,
If I really wanted to be nit-picky with you, I would have pointed out that the ancient Greeks were not big users of chariots in battle, the ground in Greece being a bit too rugged for effective chariot tactics.
The CPI debate to which you refer was you insisting that the CPI is THE measure of inflation and me pointing out that the CPI has flaws that undercut the argument you were making and that several other measures exist (most of them have a few flaws, too). I acknowledged that the CPI is widely used (having used it myself a few times), but still flawed and anyone using it should understand those flaws. You didn't.
As per your standard debate tactic, you ignored anyone who disagreed with you, put your figurative fingers in your ears, and repeated your own argument ad infinitum in an effort to drown out any dissent.
==============================
We know only that Artemis/Orion is a very brittle personality.
Conan the Grammarian at December 1, 2014 11:56 AM
Besides, when the machines make war on their human creators, a woman -- in the range of hand-to-hand combat -- will outsmart and destroy the cyborg sent to kill her. Her son will eventually lead a resistance against the machines. That much is certain. I think?
Jason S. at December 1, 2014 12:44 PM
Conan,
There you go again not making any intelligent contribution or argument. For example:
"If I really wanted to be nit-picky with you, I would have pointed out that the ancient Greeks were not big users of chariots in battle, the ground in Greece being a bit too rugged for effective chariot tactics."
What baring would any of this have upon my claim?
You spend a great deal of time inferring things not actually stated and then argue against your inference.
The frequency of use of chariots by the ancient Greeks themselves within their native lands has no baring upon their knowledge of the chariot, of which they were perfectly well aware.
The only thing required by my claim is that someone from ancient Greece would know what a horse drawn chariot was and how it was typically used.
So yes... that would have been extra nitpicky of you and also completely useless.
I for example have never used a slide rule... yet I know that it was made obsolete by the electronic calculator.
Your sudden requirement that the person making the statement had to have actually used the device instead of simply being aware of it and how it was used is based upon faulty reasoning.
Then again... if it wasn't for faulty reasoning I suspect you wouldn't have any reasoning at all.
Artemis at December 1, 2014 11:23 PM
Conan,
One more thing regarding the CPI discussion where you characterize it in the following way:
"The CPI debate to which you refer was you insisting that the CPI is THE measure of inflation and me pointing out that the CPI has flaws that undercut the argument you were making and that several other measures exist (most of them have a few flaws, too). I acknowledged that the CPI is widely used (having used it myself a few times), but still flawed and anyone using it should understand those flaws. You didn't."
This is an out and out falsehood.
I never insisted that the CPI was "THE" measure of inflation.
I insisted that the CPI was a perfectly suitable measurement of inflation for our purposes considering we were only interested in relative rates instead of absolute rates.
I not only acknowledged its flaws, but I described in detail how they simply didn't matter for the specific purposes of the discussion taking place at the time.
Please keep in mind that all of this is on the internet and preserved for all to read.
Your description of those events like pretty much everything else you write here is wrong.
Artemis at December 1, 2014 11:28 PM
Conan,
Since you are intellectually lazy and appear to love making unsubstantiated claims without any basis in fact, I'm going to do you a favor and provide a link to our previous conversation and a direct quote that proves you are wrong:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/10/12/union_boss_maki.html#comments
"Conan,
Also, by the way... the core reason why CPI is perfectly adequate for this analysis is that even if there are legitimate criticisms for using this metric as an absolute measure of inflation, for the purposes of this discussion all we are interested in are relative measures of inflation.
For this purpose CPI is perfectly suitable.
It simply does not matter if CPI determines the rate of inflation to be 1.5% when in reality it is 1.8%.
All that matters is if the relative rates are legitimate (i.e., if a higher CPI rate is correlated with a higher true inflation rate). In this arena CPI has no issues...."
My explanation goes on from there not only detailing and accepting the limitations of the CPI, but also describing how in the context of the conversation we were having those specific limitations were not a show stopper.
So exactly how did I "ignored anyone who disagreed with" me when I actively went out of my way to not only address criticism?
You are projecting.
The only one out of the two of us who ignores disagreements and puts their fingers in their proverbial ears is you.
Artemis at December 1, 2014 11:46 PM
I'll bet that just by putting a response here, any response, I can get Artemis/Orion to give us another 300+ words.
Conan the Grammarian at December 2, 2014 9:40 AM
Leave a comment