ONLY put women in combat. Start up the draft and replace every man in combat and with women and after 10 years see if our army is more or less effective, then we'll know if it makes a difference whether women can carry heavy packs and armor, etc.

Why not use logic instead of anger. Have a set of test and only allow those in combat who can pass these test. Of course men will be the vast majority since only they will be able to pass the test but if a come can do the job I see no reason why she should be denied the job. Well there is one valid reason; If additional cost are required because women have special needs than it doesn't make sense to have only a few women in a unit. Maybe there can be a unit made up of all women. Again this would be done only in the interest of cost efficiency.

An analogy:

Should I put some salt on my steak? I know- here's what I'll do- I'll eat nothing but salt for 10 days. If I like the taste then I'll know whether putting salt on a steak is a good thing.

icemilkcoffee:

An analogy:

Should I put some salt on my steak? I know- here's what I'll do- I'll eat nothing but salt for 10 days. If I like the taste then I'll know whether putting salt on a steak is a good thing.

that is the singular, WORST analogy I've ever heard.

jazzguitarman:

Why not use logic instead of anger. Have a set of test and only allow those in combat who can pass these test. Of course men will be the vast majority since only they will be able to pass the test but if a come can do the job I see no reason why she should be denied the job. Well there is one valid reason; If additional cost are required because women have special needs than it doesn't make sense to have only a few women in a unit. Maybe there can be a unit made up of all women. Again this would be done only in the interest of cost efficiency.

Hey, I don't either. I'd put men, homosexuals, women, all in the same barracks. One set of facilities, one set of tests, etc. those that can hack it, stay, those that can't leave.

I think icemilk's point was that his example was the second worst setup he's ever heard.

Bondsman:

icemilkcoffee:

An analogy:

Should I put some salt on my steak? I know- here's what I'll do- I'll eat nothing but salt for 10 days. If I like the taste then I'll know whether putting salt on a steak is a good thing.

that is the singular, WORST analogy I've ever heard.

No, it's actually pretty dead on. You're arguing something that isn't even proposed.