Originally posted by Newjak
Thanks for your service but simply because you were an instructor does that mean that the training you were told to give could not be modified to be better?
He's correct: the training "stuff" changes quite often.
I think you're correct that the US Military (and militaries, in general (huh, pun)) is slow to make changes. But those are usually social policy changes of sorts: not training or equipment related changes. In fact, it can be said that the US Military (and all the branches) are among some of the fastest and most adaptive organizations in the world due to how fast they adopt new technologies and new protocols that come with those technologies.
Originally posted by dadudemon
He's correct: the training "stuff" changes quite often.I think you're correct that the US Military (and militaries, in general (huh, pun)) is slow to make changes. But those are usually social policy changes of sorts: not training or equipment related changes. In fact, it can be said that the US Military (and all the branches) are among some of the fastest and most adaptive organizations in the world due to how fast they adopt new technologies and new protocols that come with those technologies.
Yea they change very quickly, especially lately as you mentioned, now with the acceptance of openly homosexuals and civil unions. And with women in combat, the military is very moving very fast. And everything else you said was correct as well.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Yea they change very quickly, especially lately as you mentioned, now with the acceptance of openly homosexuals and civil unions. And with women in combat, the military is very moving very fast. And everything else you said was correct as well.
Of course everything I said is correct: I'm the ****ing dadudemon. estahuh
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Where? From this type of response, makes me think you just want to argue with me, don't plan on conversing with me anymore after I just tried to be agreeable with you.
Originally posted by Newjak^^^^^^
I don't know what testing is done for Ranger training nor will I try to make inaccurate claims I am not sure off on the subject.But just because I don't know doesn't mean you do or that there could not be anything wrong with those tests.
I've already said I do not know that much about Ranger training therefore I do not know what or even if things should be modified.
And I understand you are trying to be agreeable but your antics in this thread have made me mad therefore you can honestly not expect me to treat your opinions with any real respect going forward on this topic. I will read your posts though and see if there is any factual information in them and comment accordingly.
Originally posted by dadudemonYes they have been quite often quick to spend money to upgrade or push new technologies.
He's correct: the training "stuff" changes quite often.I think you're correct that the US Military (and militaries, in general (huh, pun)) is slow to make changes. But those are usually social policy changes of sorts: not training or equipment related changes. In fact, it can be said that the US Military (and all the branches) are among some of the fastest and most adaptive organizations in the world due to how fast they adopt new technologies and new protocols that come with those technologies.
I would say their social policies have sometimes created non equal standards in the military but perhaps that has changed.
Originally posted by Newjak
^^^^^^I've already said I do not know that much about Ranger training therefore I do not know what or even if things should be modified.
And I understand you are trying to be agreeable but your antics in this thread have made me mad therefore you can honestly not expect me to treat your opinions with any real respect going forward on this topic. I will read your posts though and see if there is any factual information in them and comment accordingly.
Originally posted by Newjak
I don't know what testing is done for Ranger training nor will I try to make inaccurate claims I am not sure off on the subject.But just because I don't know doesn't mean you do or that there could not be anything wrong with those tests.
OK so you don't know what testing is being done, and you don't want to make inaccurate claims when you are not sure of on the subject.
Basically are you saying you don't know if there is a problem, but if there is, it should be addressed.
I literally said the exact same thing. A few times..so maybe we should wait and see if there is and then we can argue about facts, not fiction🙂
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
What you are saying without saying it is."Since women have started the ranger program and failed the first round, there must be something automatically wrong with the training and tests."
What you don't know about military selection for special programs is they only take the very best who meet the specifications for the types of situations they will encounter in a real world situation.
They don't train and make Rangers take tests that are based on irrelevant training and tests.
👆
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
What you are saying without saying it is."Since women have started the ranger program and failed the first round, there must be something automatically wrong with the training and tests."
What you don't know about military selection for special programs is they only take the very best who meet the specifications for the types of situations they will encounter in a real world situation.
They don't train and make Rangers take tests that are based on irrelevant training and tests.
👆
Originally posted by Time ImmemorialPretty much but also also trying to offer you logical counters to some of the things you and others have been saying in this thread.
OK so you don't know what testing is being done, and you don't want to make inaccurate claims when you are not sure of on the subject.Basically are you saying you don't know if there is a problem, but if there is, it should be addressed.
I literally said the exact same thing. A few times..so maybe we should wait and see if there is and then we can argue about facts, not fiction🙂
Such as 'the if the women taking the tests are okay with the standards how could there be anything wrong' comment you've made a few times.
But yes I would like to get facts and not fiction on the subject.
Originally posted by |King Joker|*sigh* 'Tis sad and worrisome that this even has to be said: a given job demands certain qualifications. If the qualifications aren't met, that person -- male or female -- does not get the job. Duhh. Next.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/30/ranger-women/28179303/So 8 women failed the Army Ranger course -- 5 left and 3 are going to start over. Some people are asking themselves if the standard should be lowered or if women are fit to serve in combat roles. What does this mean in your opinion?
Originally posted by Mindship
*sigh* 'Tis sad and worrisome that this even has to be said: a given job demands certain qualifications. If the qualifications aren't met, that person -- male or female -- does not get the job. Duhh. Next.
*sigh* 'Tis sad and worrisome that this even has to be said: sometimes a given job demands certain qualifications, but the qualifications demanded are not ideal for the actual job and should therefore be reevaluated. Duhh. Next.
Originally posted by Bardock42Easy. Sometimes that is the case. However...
*sigh* 'Tis sad and worrisome that this even has to be said: sometimes a given job demands certain qualifications, but the qualifications demanded are not ideal for the actual job and should therefore be reevaluated. Duhh. Next.
1. Has it been proven that this particular job needs to be re-evaluated? Has current training been shown to be ineffective in the field, and that performance would improve with physically weaker people (male/female) participating?
2. Should other physically demanding jobs (eg, firefighters) also be "re-evaluated" simply so weaker people can pass?
Originally posted by Mindship
Easy. Sometimes that is the case. However...1. Has it been proven that this particular job needs to be re-evaluated? Has current training been shown to be ineffective in the field, and that performance would improve with physically weaker people (male/female) participating?
2. Should other physically demanding jobs (eg, firefighters) also be "re-evaluated" simply so weaker people can pass?
1. I feel like that's what a reevaluation is supposed to prove...so...no?
2. No, they should be reevaluated to see whether you need people to be as strong as the test assumes and lowered if that's not the case.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
1. I still am looking for a source saying it needs to be re eevaulated.
2. Firemen/women have to carry large heavy hoses up and down stairs in full gear. It is a absolute req that they be strong.Are all men equal in strength? No, just like all women are not, some are stronger then others.
2) That's because carrying a heavy hose in full gear is something that will most likely happen during one's career as a firefighter.
Originally posted by Robtard
As it relates to the topic/the point: is being able to do say 100 pushups (or whatever is the standard) really all that important in being a US Army Ranger. ergo reevaluation of the standards to see.
Pushups increase upper body strength, overall fitness and body conditioning.. Yes they are very important, do you even push up bro?