Women Fail Army Ranger Course

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Like I said earlier, I have him on ignore.

Its been you and ush mainly. Everyone else agreed.

Do we have anything else to discuss?

I don't even think you've been discussing anything. Mostly it seems that all you've done is try to ignore the very reasonable things people have been saying in this thread and trying to discredit them without actually doing discrediting them.

Originally posted by Newjak
No it hasn't. Most of the people you quoted in that one long post of quotes agreed with what I and Ush have been saying.

I don't even think you've been discussing anything. Mostly it seems that all you've done is try to ignore the very reasonable things people have been saying in this thread and trying to discredit them without actually doing discrediting them.

Its funny hearing this, because I don't think you been discussing anything with me, only trying to discredit what I said.

Are you done?

Edit: Also, " Most of the people you quoted in that one long post of quotes agreed with what I and Ush have been saying."

That is simply untrue, they did not agree with you.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Its funny hearing this, because I don't think you been discussing anything with me, only trying to discredit what I said.

Are you done?

To the point where actual good discussion can not take place.

I mean the one argument of if the women don't want the standards to change means everything is fine one is the best one so far.

Originally posted by Newjak
Because almost everything you've said on the subject is logically faulty.

To the point where actual good discussion can not take place.

I mean the one argument of if the women don't want the standards to change means everything is fine one is the best one so far.

Your logic is faulty as well.

That argument was dismissed as wrong line of logic, by you😂 Or do I need to quote you..

Originally posted by Newjak

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.

So is there anything else or are you done?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Its funny hearing this, because I don't think you been discussing anything with me, only trying to discredit what I said.

Are you done?

Edit: Also, " Most of the people you quoted in that one long post of quotes agreed with what I and Ush have been saying."

That is simply untrue, they did not agree with you.

But yes almost half of those people agree with what Ush and I have said.

If you do not see that you clearly do not know what has been said in this thread.

I will explain it to you one more time and you can go back and reread those posts and see what I'm saying.

People are not advocating for standards to be dropped if they are the standards that are needed but if the standards aren't doing a good job of measuring the qualities needed to be a Ranger then they should be changed. If they need to be changed perhaps the old standards were biased against women and you might see more women make it.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Your logic is faulty as well.

That argument was dismissed, by you😂 Or do I need to quote you..

So is there anything else or are you done?

Ie just because people that are potentially being discriminated against are okay with it does not mean there is not a problem to be looked into.

The notion that simply because the women taking the tests are okay with the standards therefore nothing is wrong is faulty.

Originally posted by Newjak

But yes almost half of those people agree with what Ush and I have said.

No they did not.

Originally posted by Newjak

I mean the one argument of if the women don't want the standards to change means everything is fine one is the best one so far.

Flip flop.

Faulty logic according to you is not a good argument.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yes it was dismissed by me because it was faulty.

Ie just because people that are potentially being discriminated against are okay with it does not mean there is not a problem to be looked into.

The notion that simply because the women taking the tests are okay with the standards therefore nothing is wrong is faulty.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
No they did not.

That's 3/7 posts you quoted. So half a post away from being half.

So yes almost half of the people.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Flip flop.

Faulty logic according to you is not a good argument.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yes they did. Surtur, Omega, and PR both basically said the exact same thing Ush and I have stated.

That's 3/7 posts you quoted. So half a post away from being half.

So yes almost half of the people.

No they didn't, and so the story has changed from a 50% to 3/7..

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
No they didn't, and so the story has changed from a 50% to 3/7..

And yes they did. They all said they should not be lowered only IF the current standards are in fact the best standards in place. Which is what Ush and I have been saying.

I mean we've also been trying to fix the faulty points you've been trying to make but I see that has gone nowhere.

Originally posted by Newjak
The story did not change I said almost half but if you want an actual 42% of them if it makes you feel better TI.

And yes they did. They all said they should not be lowered only IF the current standards are in fact the best standards in place. Which is what Ush and I have been saying.

I mean we've also been trying to fix the faulty points you've been trying to make but I see that has gone nowhere.

40% would not even round up to 45%, it would round down to 40%. Which is no where close to half.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
40% would not even round up to 45%, it would round down to 40%. Which is no where close to half.

42% is closer to half than it is a third. Also why are you rounding from 42% to 40% that doesn't make sense. I could see rounding from 42.X% to 42% or 43%. And honestly it doesn't change anything as you're still wrong. You've made terrible arguments here.

And you've literally done nothing but make useless pointless jumps in logic that make you seem ignorant and stupid. I've been trying to help you not look like a fool but the damage is done.

At this point you've done nothing but infuriate me by acting stupid. At least I hope it is an act.

Originally posted by Newjak
Okay I'm sorry I understand you are probably a troll but this is stupid.

42% is closer to half than it is a third. Also why are you rounding from 42% to 40% that doesn't make sense. I could see rounding from 42.X% to 42% or 43%. And honestly it doesn't change anything as you're still wrong. You've made terrible arguments here.

And you've literally done nothing but make useless pointless jumps in logic that make you seem ignorant and stupid. I've been trying to help you not look like a fool but the damage is done.

At this point you've done nothing but infuriate me by acting stupid. At least I hope it is an act.

I was pointing out your faulty logic, like you did mine. If you don't like it or can't handle it don't respond..

edit:Again no one agreed with you..if they did, let there voices be heard.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I was pointing out your faulty logic, like you did mine. If you don't like it or can't handle it don't respond..

That I said almost half of them agreed with Ush and I?

That's not logic that was me saying a fairly accurate assessment of the data you presented me with the quotes.

I've even refined the number to give the most accurate representation and apologized with my initial estimate of most people. We are nothing alike in this debate.

And if I see something I know is wrong I am going to respond and point it out. You've been wrong almost this entire thread. The only time you've been somewhat right is on side points that do not even relate to the topic at hand. Like how many people agreed with Ush and I.

You've been flat wrong in your arguments in this thread.

EDIT: Also do you not have proper reading comprehension? This is a legit question at this point. Those three I mentioned said in their posts if the current training is the best training it should not be changed. If it isn't then it needs to be changed.

Originally posted by Newjak
What faulty logic?

That I said almost half of them agreed with Ush and I?

That's not logic that was me saying a fairly accurate assessment of the data you presented me with the quotes.

I've even refined the number to give the most accurate representation and apologized with my initial estimate of most people. We are nothing alike in this debate.

And if I see something I know is wrong I am going to respond and point it out. You've been wrong almost this entire thread. The only time you've been somewhat right is on side points that do not even relate to the topic at hand. Like how many people agreed with Ush and I.

You've been flat wrong in your arguments in this thread.

No they didn't agree with you or Ush, not the ones I mentioned.

I have been right about everything and you have been wrong about everything and made many baseless assumptions.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
No they didn't agree with you or Ush, not the ones I mentioned.

I have been right about everything and you have been wrong about everything and made many baseless assumptions.

Originally posted by Newjak
Read the edit I madefacepalm

Oh sorry I posted before you made an edit.facepalm

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Oh sorry I posted before you made an edit.facepalm