Originally posted by Time ImmemorialYeah it pretty much addressed everything mentioned so far in this thread.
You posted this on page 6.This was you addressing everyone else arguments? You keep saying "maybe" research has shown.."Maybe" isn't a fact, its a imagined idea you have. Where are the hard facts.
And you're right I have used 'maybe' because I don't know if the tests are accurate or not but neither do you. Simply because I do not know if the problem is real does not mean it should not be looked into.
Hence it is called investigating the problem.
Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah it pretty much addressed everything mentioned so far in this thread.And you're right I have used 'maybe' because I don't know if the tests are accurate or not but neither do you. Simply because I do not know if the problem is real does not mean it should not be looked into.
Hence it is called investigating the problem.
Which tests specifically are you referring too?
Originally posted by Time ImmemorialNo we are not arguing for the sake of arguing. We are arguing over faulty logical points that keep getting brought up that hurts proper discussion.
Ah so we are arguing to argue, because there has been nothing to suggest from any source posted that the standard needs to be lowered.Research has not shown any of that, unless you have something to make a substatial claim.
As it goes right now, the Rangers are allowing men and women, the Rangers don't want the standard lowered, and neither do the women or men that are in the program.
Any more of this and we are debating about a unicorn.
Like if the women are okay with the standards that means there can not be anything wrong line of logic. It isn't true. Even if someone that is being discriminated against is okay with the discrimination it does not make it okay. Or the notion that somehow people keep saying that the standards NEED to be lowered which no one I've seen in this thread has said. All I've seen is that maybe a reevaluation of possible outdated criteria should happen.
And I don't know what the research says because A) it hasn't been investigated yet or B) I haven't seen it.
Originally posted by Time ImmemorialI 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.
Which tests specifically are you referring too?
But just because I don't know doesn't mean you do or that there could not be anything wrong with those tests.
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.
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 ImmemorialThat is what people have been trying to tell you throughout this entire thread.
Where did it say that a reevaluation of possible outdated criteria should happen? If it said that then sure.
The opening post basically asks should standards be lowered which is asking should they be reevaluated.
Or have you been ignoring everyone's posts in this thread simply because you're trying to argue from the original posted article's standpoint?
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.
Your blind belief that the current testing method is the best testing method seems foolish.
Originally posted by Newjak
That is what people have been trying to tell you throughout this entire thread.The opening post basically asks should standards be lowered which is asking should they be reevaluated.
Or have you been ignoring everyone's posts in this thread simply because you're trying to argue from the original posted article's standpoint?
He said in OP "Some people" so who are "Some people". OP is misleading basing "some people" off info in the article posted, when his source of his "opinion" has no such mention of this.
If it was his opinion or idea. He should have said "In My Opinion"
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
He said in OP "Some people" so who are "Some people". OP is misleading basing "some people" off info in the article posted.If it was his opinion or idea. He should have said "In My Opinion"
The OP never said that the "some people" he refers to were mentioned in the article, it is your shortcoming that you assume it has to.
Originally posted by Time ImmemorialThat does not change the faulty logic in this thread nor does it negate the points people have been trying to tell you.
He said in OP "Some people" so who are "Some people". OP is misleading basing "some people" off info in the article posted.If it was his opinion or idea. He should have said "In My Opinion"
Re: Women Fail Army Ranger Course
Originally posted by |King Joker|
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?
Oh well, sorry it does.