File: in_the_year_3050.swf-(8.66 MB, 480x360, Game)
[_] 2525 was a boring year anyway Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)17:56:57 No.2977084
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)18:02:44 No.2977089
back in the day this badly rendered cut scene would have got everyone wet
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)18:05:37 No.2977093
>>2977089
I still get a little moist when I watch it.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)18:07:29 No.2977095
>men and women
>women
women does not belong on the battlefield, no matter how much mainstream media keeps enforcing it
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)18:09:11 No.2977097
>31st century
>still driving around in human operated bulky war machines
If we haven't already exterminated ourselves by that time, we'd have things like swarms of
nanomachines, a much more effective weapon than a hulking suit of armor.
Mech armor doesn't even seem to be like an amazing advancement in battle tech. We can already
obliterate things like that with computer guided rockets from thousands of miles away. I think
military hardware is scaling down in size, not up.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)18:14:02 No.2977101
>>2977097
>peasants insisting on the widespread use of Lostech that even the Clans didn't figure out
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)18:18:12 No.2977107
>>2977095
Eh, they don't make for good infantry, but as pilots and other vehicular positions they're fine,
being somewhat short is an advantage in that context.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)18:37:38 No.2977121
>>2977107
no, because men want to protect women and that can fuck up whole missions since many men will
gladly disobey orders and/or sacrifice themselves to save their female team mates. even if it
goes against the greater good (the mission).
30 years of feminist propaganda isn't going to change how men have worked since thousands of
years. we want to protect women, it's instinct. and honestly, do we really want this to change?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)18:44:12 No.2977124
>>2977121
What? Anyone knows that it is best to die in battle honorably so that your genes may be used
again in the Clan Eugenics program.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)18:46:08 No.2977125
>>2977121
>"Men want to protect women"
That's not how it works mate. Women who go to war aren't useless and they're not super models
either. You won't be distracted by them because they all act the same as men do. Only difference
is the vagina they have instead of a penis.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)19:24:12 No.2977155
>>2977125
That's not how it works. Regardless if they are weak or not, whether they are beautiful or not,
males are programmed to protect them. That will create problems that just simply wouldn't be
there if she had been a guy and I think it's ridiculous that we humor girls so much in the
military even though anyone that actually know a little about soldiering know that it's a bad
idea for them to be there.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)19:24:15 No.2977156
someone /r/ing the song OP refers to
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)19:34:30 No.2977162
>>2977097
>>2977121
>I've never actually served, but let me spout my ignorant opinions
Statistically, less women are suitable for military service than men, but there are plenty of
women who ARE suitable, just like there are plenty men who aren't.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)19:44:55 No.2977169
>>2977121
>men want to protect women and that can fuck up whole missions since many men will gladly disobey
orders and/or sacrifice themselves to save their female team mates
mem sacrifice themselves for other men all the time. but if it were me we gotta be talking about
a preeetty banging female soldier to make my dick want to run through bullets to get some poosy
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)19:50:29 No.2977171
>>2977121
You know, there's a lot of very valid reasons to keep a large majority of women out of combat
arms positions, but this isn't one of them. It's stupid and pointless.
People said the exact same thing about black people when they were discussing mixed regiments.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)19:51:47 No.2977172
>>2977162
Don't you know that men generally wants to protect their women or are you just chosing to ignore
facts because of how you want the world to be? If you are ignoring facts you may be one of those
feminists I mentioned earlier.
>>2977169
I'm having trouble getting through here but I have a image that might reach you guys, I'll see if
I can find it.
>>2977171
Hardly. I hope I find that image, give me a minute.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)19:56:15 No.2977174
>>2977172
Oh, but I'm not wrong.
While there are suggestions that females present in what used to be all male occupations will
cause some social friction, that's true of any social situation.
This urge to protect you're talking about is something that soldiers already deal with and train
against, adding women to the mix isn't going to make it any worse. Soldiers already get
themselves killed risking their lives for their fellow soldiers, sometimes stupidly.
It's an instinct that combat soldiers learn to deal with already. Why would it be any different
for women besides your baseless idea that men lose all ability to reason in the presence in a
hurt woman?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:00:56 No.2977176
I found the original article instead:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/27/some-advice-on-women-in-combat-from-a-female-veteran/
So basically here we have a female vetaran making very good arguments for why female soldiers are
a bad idea. Honestly I don't expect you to read all of that but I've at least tried to back up my
opinion now.
>>2977174
I don't get how "men want to protect women" is baseless when a simple glance at human nature
should be enough. Just imagine some guy kicking a girl's butt on a train, several white knights
will spring into action without any knowledge of the situation simply because they want to
protect her. (It would happen even if she was 20 years older than the knights and hella ugly.)
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:06:28 No.2977180
ITT: Pleebs who have never served in the military and watch too many white knight anime spout
ignorant rhetoric of gender making you unqualified for combat piloting or combat tactics.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:11:55 No.2977181
>>2977180
Guess I'm just a bit old fashioned in thinking that you shouldn't send a woman to do a man's job.
Usually women wouldn't even be able to get the job if they don't lower the demands for it in
woman's cases.
Firemen is a good example. I pity the man passed out in a burning building if a woman comes to
his aid. Yeah in some cases she will be able to get him out of there but in any case a man would
have been able to do it quicker.
Not that that happen often anyway, we as a society, usually don't give women dangerous jobs
(because we want to protect women, as is our instincts). Luckily most women don't really seek out
these dangerous jobs anyway because most women are sane enough to know their own limitations.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:15:05 No.2977183
>>2977176
And plenty of men would stand by and watch. Same way of a guy was kicking the shit out a another
guy people would go to help. Either provide some real evidence of what you're suggesting or
realize that you're making shit up.
And there's plenty of good reasons for women to not be in combat, this just isn't one of them.
Issues related to physical ability and long term health in field related situations, never mind
problems with pregency. So talk about real problems, not bullshit
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:20:35 No.2977187
>>2977180
that sentence isn't making sense, you seem to be contradicting yourself
>>2977183
yeah, some would stand by and watch because either they are cowards (doesnt mean that they
wouldnt want to step in) or because someone else is already stepping in. or they get aroused from
it...
im not making anything up. are there really people out there that have not noticed the basic
nature of men wanting to protect women? you're asking me to prove that the sky is blue, just look
outside buddy.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:27:37 No.2977188
>>2977181
The thing is, it's not a "man's job". It's a "whoever is qualified for the job." Using your
example, if a woman is buff enough to lift 200lbs while wearing 75lbs of gear, why wouldn't you
hire her for a firefighter position if she wants it? This woman just as physically (and
PRESUMABLY mentally) capable as a man.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:28:40 No.2977190
>>2977187
>im not making anything up. are there really people out there that have not noticed the basic
nature of men wanting to protect women? you're asking me to prove that the sky is blue, just look
outside buddy.
There's nothing basic about human nature in terms of social interaction. Provide sources,
studies, evidence. Don't make huge generalizations about the nature of human beings universally
without any evidence to back you up, because it means less than nothing. All you're doing to
prove you point is going "Everyone knows this" "It's obvious" and "Here's a hypothetical
situation that I've designed to prove my point without considering any alternate explanations."
Even the source you cited, while certainly having a lot of good points, provides almost nothing
to your claim. At least she talks about real numbers(that of mixed units having 3 times the
causalities of male only units), but even that needs to be investigated to account for other
variables(women, for example, are more prone to injuries related to combat arms style actions.
Certainly a valid reason for them to not be in the role, but nothing to do with male vs female
interactions).
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:34:23 No.2977194
>>2977188
That's just the thing, they lower physical requirements to meet their female quota.
>>2977190
Jesus man, I don't intend to waste my time Googling for studies that proves that the sky is blue.
You seem like the kind of guy that wouldn't read it anyway. You'd just find something else to
point out.
>as you can clearly see this ball is round
>oh yeah? provide sources, studies, evidence. this clearly obvious fact of life means nothing to
me unless a long bearded man wrote a paper on it.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:38:44 No.2977198
>>2977194
>That's just the thing, they lower physical requirements to meet their female quota.
Source?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:41:54 No.2977200
>>2977198
https://www.google.com/search?q=male+vs+female+firefighter+requirements
>LIES, ALL LIES
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:44:11 No.2977201
more lies here as well
https://www.google.com/search?q=male+vs+female+soldier+requirements
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:49:00 No.2977202
>>2977156
Seems it's been uploaded rather recently. Here.
http://swfchan.com/27/132870/?in+the+year+2525.swf
Can work it out from there.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:49:36 No.2977203
>>2977125
Virgin detected.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:55:41 No.2977207
>>2977194
Motherfucker, I'm asking you to provide the studies because I know they don't exist.
I did the research on this topic, and did quite a bit of it. I know the subject pretty damn well,
and all the various issues and points of view.
And now I'm challenging you to not sprout bullshit and do the research yourself, and you're
refusing too, because you like being ignorant, I guess?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)20:57:34 No.2977209
>>2977207
Just to be clear: We are talking about the fact that men want to protect women, right? I mean,
the supposedly "fact"?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)21:06:58 No.2977214
How do you faggots actually fall for that kind of bait? Please kill yourselves.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)21:11:28 No.2977216
>>2977097
>31st century
>still speaking American English
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)21:14:11 No.2977217
>>2977214
7/10, your biggest mistake was to generalize your comment so that both sides of the argument
would feel that it was directed to them. made it too obvious.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)21:22:47 No.2977222
>>2977200
>https://www.google.com/search?q=male+vs+female+firefigh
ter+requirements
Instead of citing sources, you just to a "let me google that for you" link. Everything on that
page was about inequality of gender for SEXUAL HARRASSMENT.
The one I DID find was lowering the requirements for EVERYONE. "Fire chiefs have made the 'ladder
lifting' tests that all new recruits must go through easier to allow more women and less-strong
men into the service."
and that was for the goddamn U.K.
you lack of research and preconceived notion that women are getting special treatment is a big
fucking joke, perpetrated by people like you. "A lot of people say it, so it must be true".
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)21:28:40 No.2977226
>>2977222
Google is different for everybody so maybe they felt like giving you links that were more
pleasing for your feelings.
If you can't see that women gets special treatment you are the joke, my friend.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)21:32:42 No.2977230
>>2977226
The fact that you typed that first line, thought it was okay, even as a joke, and hit post....
Google doesn't work that way. I'm done. You're far too stupid to have a meaningful argument with.
You win.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)21:37:07 No.2977232
>>2977230
Wait, did we have an argument? Oh yeah, I was for reality and you were for stronk womyn.
Google do work that way, they personalize search results to who they believe makes the search
(especially if you're logged in).
>> [_] Anonymous 12/14/15(Mon)21:39:24 No.2977237
>>2977209
We're talking about the specific concept of men having an instinct to protect women that will
overwrite military training specifically designed to prevent that sort of situation(in general,
not for women specifically, yes).
I've done the wider research on the idea of women in combat positions, and the data shows it to
be a bad idea.
But there's nothing to be fucking gained arguing the position with bullshit facts that you can't
prove when there's tons and tons of legitimate and researched reasons and data to use instead.
