Blind Loyalty?

[gryphon]

Arn't woman scientifically also the more rational thinkers. Keeping kalm in certain situations etc.

This would make them better tank-personal, combat fighterpilots. They can be clam where others [ men ] would get fanatical, emotional.

Look at some of the Arabic country's. Some years ago they had enourmes batalions of female soldiers. Hardend by the extreem situations in which they could stay calm and the man where having nervous brakedowns. All your "manly strenght" isn't wurth mutch at that moment.

It's like scotty from Star Trek mentioned. "How many times do I have to tell you, use the right tool for the right job.".

"Ohh they killed women as little in the past as the vietnam war. Men, women and children would hold explosives in bags (sappers) or whatever and would try to "peacefully" enter the camp. It often resulted in the men,women,children being shot outside the camp."

That's what I ment, woman can fight to.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Female's can be aggressive and be strong as male's. Because some scientist performed tests upon some female's that "aren't" aggressive, means that "all" female's are weak?

*Coughs* Riiiiiight.

But at the other hand you are right. Men do produce more of the specified hormone.

" Female's takes care of the wounded and children"

" Male's takes care of the violent and fighting matters "

P.S: Don't think that every thread turn into a war. You are trying to light up the spark

[Acriku]

No one has ever mentioned weak, it was in fact you kirov who mentioned it. And gryphon that's why I said specifically "physically". And kirov, so you are saying the majority of females can be as strong as the majority of males? That simply is not true. And there weren't just some scientists and some females, there were many many many tests, don't understate anything that you obviously have no idea about. And the threads usually do turn into big arguments, note that you are the only one who said war  >:(, so I am not trying to "spark" anything.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Not "all" female's, just a moderate percentage of it.

Half of the test's, indicated that some of the female's had potential with Mental and Physical abilities.

;D

P.S: It depends on the posters. The thread would likely lower itself if some offtopic poster post.

[Acriku]

Actually half of what tests? Surely not half the tests I'm talking about which were posted in Popular Science during the '90s, otherwise I would think you are lying just to try to prove your point. A moderate percentage? What kind of argument is that? That proves nothing, depending on your perspective 12% can be moderate.

But back on the topic, I agree Gryphon that a soldier couldn't know the situation, and that is one of the reasons he must trust his superiors blindly but also have a good head on his shoulders.

[TMA_1]

Edric your a cornball! lol but I like ya anyway. You have good ideas but what you just said was out of line. I am not a sexist. THroughout history usually men were the fighters. That is all throughout the world. There are occasions like in africa. When women would have right to fight in battle. Sexism is viewing women as inferior. They arent. It is just obvious that its the way it is. Even now women cant directly fight in many armies. Sappers are not good solders btw. They just use surprise. like the fremen. Good tactic but that doesnt add up to a great solder. Fremen were good though so that wasnt a good example.lol

[jacobdouds]

Yeas, I will also remove myself from this, with a final message from my self.

Neither woman nor men have any difference in brain activity. It is all about how you are raised. If you are born, and a rugby ball is thrown into you hand, and you are expected to be the tough macho person, then, those parts of your brain develop more. and vice versa.

[Acriku]

Jacob and to all others, no one said women were different from men mentally. Only physically, which has been explained. Now back on topic as I have tried before...

[Gunseng_Harkonnen]

This thread has tendention to change on another thread. ;)

About women = men were fighters cos in history women haven`t as many rights as men. I don`t say fighting is right but long time women

[Anathema]

There is a theory that women are mentally superior to men. The female brain is generally slightly smaller then the male version, but when active, the female brain uses a larger percentage of its potential then the male brain. Some scientists believe female brains can therefore process information faster then male brains.

As for the militairy thing, physical strenght has become less of a factor the last few centuries. 1000 years ago you got a sword and if you were strong enough you could cut somebody to pieces with it. Now you are given a gun and if you can target and pull the trigger you can already kill someone. Being able to keep your head cool is more usefull these days then being physicly strong.

[Gunseng_Harkonnen]

I heard that women faster finish being child, I don`t remember age but its a fact. In practise, which part of class in school learn better. In most times the girl part.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Using gun's requires both mental and physical strength.

Mental = Like you said, keep the head cool. Think clear and efficient.

Physical = Well. This is self explaining.  ;D

They say female's are 2 years older then male's. Once again that's a theory.

And as for Acriku. I think that could be true. But once once once again.  ;D It depend's on who the person is.

" Female's has discoverd fire. " You believe this? *

[ordos45]

Now I put myself back in the line of fire.  Really if a woman is shooting at you are you going to hesitate killing her in self defense?  No!

Back on topic though.  If you are say a midlevel officer who blindly follows orders and commits a war crime, chances are you'll be prosecuted.  If you question orders, chances are you'll be prosecuted.  It is a no win situation.

[Caid Ivik]

Uf, when someone start with woman, he cannot stop!

Blind loyalty, as you name it became from laws many times. But also many war criminals use it as argument for their "terroristic" activities, which were many times done in anger against enemy nation and its civilians.

[nampigai]

Arn't woman scientifically also the more rational thinkers. Keeping kalm in certain situations etc.

This would make them better tank-personal, combat fighterpilots. They can be clam where others [ men ] would get fanatical, emotional.

Through personal experience I would say no, I don't know where the wise scientists get's this idea from, fysically men are stronger than women and I would say psycologically too, from what I've seen, no offence ;), but men do make better soldiers, when I was in I saw how miserable many girls acted there. In Denmark we now have girls in the Royal Guard and the Husars(mounted guards) I see this only as a prococation by those girls in there and I don't like it, maybe I'm just old fashion :P

Back to the blind loyalty I've been too lazy to read it all, but in my opinion blind loyalty is the same as fanatacism wich I'm very much against. fanatics are people who do not have the ability to think for themself, Hitler wanted to create such a world and he could have succeeded, what a nice europe we would have had then :P.

Thereby I don't say that loyalty is bad I myself see it as a very important virtue towards friends and things I believe in. The things I believe in I wont force others to believe it's my way to see things and others have their way, that's one of the things that make us superior beings.

If any of my friends get's into trouble I would back him up 100%.

If one of my friends do something I strongly disagree with like killing, doing drugs, drunkdriving etc he wouldn't have my trust or loyalty anymore and I wouldn't regard him as a friend anymore.

[gryphon]

"but it isn`t loyalty when he put bomb on normal houses not military buildings."

A normal soldier in the field is in most [ through all ] situations not capable of desiding if the house is a normal house or a military realted building.

Fysically man are indeed stronger. But psychological I would say that woman in general are stronger then man. [ But studies arn't conlusieve about that, so it's also my opinion. ]

But then there is the fact [ not ment as an insult to people in the military ] that psychological stonger woman don't go off for carreers in the army. They're usually looking fore more "conservatieve" jobs.

"If any of my friends get's into trouble I would back him up 100%.

If one of my friends do something I strongly disagree with like killing, doing drugs, drunkdriving etc he wouldn't have my trust or loyalty anymore and I wouldn't regard him as a friend anymore."

That line is easyer to draw then to uphold in real life in my opinion. What if a friend of you get's into trouble, verry big troubles that requiere for him to murder someone, or very emotioneal problems that make him or her a nervous wreck and your friend would take up drugs in the progress ?

I belive I ones IM'ed this with Yoshi [ back in the old day's ;D ;) ], my definition of a friend .. .I don't really have one. I don't think it's right to say "he ones was a friend of mine but now isn't anymore", the persone in question might have changed, but the persone he was is still your friend and still get's your respect. And then there are the people you meet in your life, usually for a verry short time but mean something to you. For the time you have know the persone you liked him, and the memory you take with you of him is still positieve. You felt good in his or her precence and with the lasting memory of the persone that you take with you.

But if you should hear from that persone again in some years and he or she has done something verry terrible, would that place the fealings you have about that persone in a different view ? I personally don't think that.

If a persone sould get your respect [ men I hate that phrase. .. ] that is for the persone who he or she is. And in my case if that persone should deside to act in a way that a totally disagree with, he still does it because it is his way, his view. And because my "respect" [ again, I'm starting to hate this ] is not based strickly on actions alone but also to the persone / personality, it won't change. Nor has it in the cases with me sofar.

But then, that's just my way.

[nampigai]

I respect your point of view, it's only good that all don't think the same way ;)

I have been there with a friend who was about to commit suicide, luckely he didn't.

Later on we went different ways and he started changing and one night in town he was very provoking towards one of my other friends, and they nearly got in a fight with me in the middle since then(four years ago) I didn't talk to him, until recently.

The thing about killing people is offcourse if the person goes out to kill one or start wearing knifes etc.

If he killed in selfdefense or anything like that it would be another debate.

[Anathema]

Back to the topic....

Loyalty is, idealisticly good. But militairy leaders can abuse them. Civilians were killed by Israeli's, but maybe those soldiers didn't know that. For all we know their commanding officers said those civilians were terrorists and the soldiers didn't question that. Blind loyalty is a bad thing, because people do no longer think reasonably and bad things could happen because of that.

[nampigai]

when I was educated we learned about illegal orders and legal orders, it's just a matter of being able to think, wich I agree many soldiers don't have that ability.

[TMA_1]

Political correctness. it is smothering everything.lol blah blah women are better at this and that. It doesnt MATTER! lol Historically men have taken the role of warrior. Its just the way it was. there were only few exeptions. you guys can go on about how great women are but we are equal. cool it guys. lol or we will have to start a new thread.

[Anathema]

True. For each research that points out women are better at this you can do another research that points out the contrary. Research results are unreliable.

For the soldier thing, some countries (like Israel) prefers to have soldiers that do not think but follow orders without question. As I said before, I think it is repulsive that countries train that kind of soldiers.

[gryphon]

"Blind loyalty is a bad thing, because people do no longer think reasonably and bad things could happen because of that."

I stongly disagree with that. It's the "knife theory". A knife on itself isn't bad, you can use it to slice and orange, to make beautiful wooden artvorms. And you can use it to cut some ones hard out while he is still living. It's the intention with which it is being used that's evil or not.

Just as with "blind loyalty". On itself it isn't good or bad, the persone who abuses it and his intentions whould make it bad.

[nampigai]

Still I think that blind loyalty removes what makes us human if we blindly follow a leader then we do not think, we do not question anything and that's imo bad ;)

As for the soldier part many other countries educate "mindless" soldiers as well, it's the easiest in war when they don't question and soldier shouldn't quastion in war then things will turn bad, Only if they know that what they are doing is wrong.

Example

You sit in a foxhold and you see an enemy amoured vehicle close in, and your superior tells you to fight it, then you shouldn't question, how ever if you see three civilians cross and your superior tells you to kill them you should offcourse deny.

[Anathema]

Blind loyalty simply calls for abuse. It only takes one mad officer to order a bunch of fanatic soldiers to kill civilans.

As for the knife theory, then nukes wouldn't be bad either. It's the guy that has them. If we didn't have nukes, we wouldn't live in fear that dangerous men such as Sadam Hoessein would have them. Even a single nuke could kill thousends of civilians if it falls into the wrong hands. There are always people that do evil things with power and therefor nukes and soldiers blinded by loyalty are a bad thing.

[gryphon]

"if we blindly follow a leader then we do not think"

Blind loyalty is not alway directed towards a military or religious leader. what about towards yourself, your [girl]friend ?

Nucliar capability isn't bad, we get energy by means of nucliar fusion. And like in Dune we can have a supplie of nukes for a enemy from space we can't possibly emagine at this time.

A single nuke can kill thousends. . .so can other things but they arn't considerd dangerous.

"There are always people that do evil things with power and therefor nukes and soldiers blinded by loyalty are a bad thing."

But they do evil things with that "power", not nessesary with the nukes or by means of the soldiers you then mention. So there is no direct relation between that "evil power" and the means they use.

And if power itself is bad, do you even play computer games, a situation where you have the potential power to destroy your adversary's army ? Then you have power. UNHCR in Africa has the power to heal people ? Is that bad power to ?

Don't think so. The power or means arn't bad. It is the intention by which it is used.