The following debate originally took place upon the Facebook wall of family…
Genaire: Pressure Grows on Marines to Consider Lowering Combat Standards for Women:
Anke M.: Such BS! Genaire you need to step away from these right wing nut sites, papers and FOX! Jesus, wTF is wrong with you?
Genaire: ? Just sharing the info.
Anke M.: Honey, that’s not information, that’s nasty lies and propaganda!
Genaire: It really isn’t. I’ve seen this from multiple sources and have witnessed it first hand with the lowering of the requirements it took to become a police officer.
Genaire: Question Anke. The only true media in your mind is liberal media? And the Washington Times becomes a right wing but site to you? Lol
Anke M.: No Genaire, I enjoy listening to NPR as well. They are pretty even handed. And believe you me I’m not always thrilled with the NYT either, but at least they try. The Washington Times however is owned by the Rev. Moon, the crazy loony bin candidate. The paper has not published anything unbiased for at least 20 years. They do not work together with FOX, but unfortunately they are the print version of that cancer!
Genaire: The Cost of Lower Standards for Women in Marine Recruitment:
Genaire: Carter: Military Should Let Women Meet Standards for Combat Jobs:
Genaire: Admiral: SEALs Should Open Up To Women, But There Will Be Pressure To Lower Standards:
Genaire: Obama’s Dangerous Drive to Make US Combat Troops Co-Ed:
Genaire: They all seem to be saying the same thing and since you like NPR:
The Marines Are Looking For A Few Good (Combat-Ready) Women:
Anke M.: New York Post….Rupert Murdoch,enough said. Did you check out the NPR article? Cause it was all over my TV when 2 or 3 lovely young women made it through that grueling training…..
Anyway , sweetheart, I really do not wish to argue, I know that women have been serving in combat valiantly , bravely and with distinction for many years!
For a young man, you seem to have some strange sexist thoughts, especially married to a strong woman like Rayn!
Genaire: Anke, I’m by far not a sexist. If a female can pass the test as it stands by all means. I however don’t advocate for the standards to be lowered in any way. Me merely posting an article without my personal commentary on said article does not denote that I agree or disagree with said article in any way. As I mentioned above just passing along the information.
Your mere commenting on my post without knowing my opinion makes it obvious that you were indeed looking to argue. Knowing my track record you know I will always oblige.
Genaire: By all means come in Richard H. I would love to hear your opinion on this matter. The thumbs up don’t do your opinion justice.
Richard H.: Lol, I am in an observation mode today my friend. But I do appreciate the invite. My only 2 cents is, I do listen to NPR. I find it to be quite balanced. And while the average female military personnel may have difficulties passing some of the more aggressive training, I do believe that there are many female warriors out there that are just as capable as men. Lets not for get. All men came from women. Seeing my wife go through 21 hours of labor, and still able to smile every now and then, I know that they are strong and can take pain. Just my 2 cents. Please carry on. 🙂
Genaire: Lol ok then we are in agreement. I believe while heartily that some women would be capable of passing the physical requirements and should in deed be given the opportunity. I however don’t believe that the standards should be lowered for people doing the same job.
Richard H.: i can agree with that.
Jordan K.: Keep the standards, wait for women to rise to the challenge. They can and will.
Rayn: How exactly is this article “not information,” and “nasty lies,” Anke? Unless you at least provide EVIDENCE to support your claims, you’re really just relying on a logically fallacious, emotionally-charged appeal to ridicule (i.e. “such BS!,” and “WTF is wrong with you?”), in lieu of addressing the position of the author. Besides this, you’re also leaning on an equally emotionally-charged and just as fallacious appeal to spite (i.e. “right wing … sites, papers and FOX”), in an effort to exploit current leftist bitterness towards the right, rather than addressing the position of the author. Finally, you’re also committing the genetic fallacy of an ad hominem attack (i.e. “nut sites”), in focusing solely on the source of this article, rather than legitimately addressing the position described therein.
Also, for future reference, as much as I appreciate your friendship, and your sharing of your viewpoints, I don’t at all appreciate your comment to Genaire, “for a young man, you seem to have some strange sexist thoughts, especially married to a strong woman like Rayn!” My husband isn’t at all sexist, and I honestly fail to see how his posting of the above article would even make him “seem” to be so. I agree with the majority of this article, myself, and have even debated a similar position in the past, as I wholeheartedly believe that women should have the opportunity to join the military (and become firefighters, too, for that matter), just so long as they meet the currently-set qualifications that have already been established for all others in the field, rather than artificially lowering the bar just to allow the under-and-non-qualified to participate, so am I also “sexist,” by your standards? Either way, I challenge you to provide a single shred of evidence to support your spurious claim against my husband. I’ll wait…
In the meantime, I will point out that your latest comment involving me hearkens back to your August 14th reply to my husband, during an abortion debate on your FB wall, wherein you posted, “I feel sorry for Rayn, having to put up with such a strange , out of touch, superior feeling nobody.”
I didn’t appreciate your comment, then, either. I viewed it as unjustifiably hostile and provocative. However, I chose not to respond to what you wrote, at that time, because I truly hoped that your words symbolized some sort of emotionally-charged, irresponsible fluke, on your part, as I juxtaposed your statement with how friendly and supportive you had been on Facebook throughout the many months that Genaire and I were trucking together.
I truly, truly loathe being forced to dig myself out of a hole just because someone else decides to carelessly drop me into one against my will. This is especially true when such a situation involves personal attacks against me, or erroneous claims about my personal life, and even more so, when the forum where I’m expected to defend myself under duress is public. And, these particular comments of yours place me in that exact, perturbing position. But, hoping to err on the side of peace, I looked over that particular exchange you two were having, at the time (which included a few of your friends, as well), and determined that Genaire had made my position clear enough for you all when he replied to your statement by noting that I don’t “believe in abortion for any reason.” So, I decided not to comment…
Of course, if I hadn’t decided to keep our interactions as peaceful as possible, I would have written on your post to let you know that your comment to Genaire, which included name, was actually uncalled for, and I would have cited the exact reasons I’ve stated in the above paragraph. Then, I would have continued by clarifying my ACTUAL position on the issue you two were debating, so that you would know my real viewpoint, from that day forward, with zero room for speculation, conjecture, or presumption…
Jordan K.: I remember reading those nasty comments from Anke and looking at their facebook feed. Guess what I found? A post of a video from Fox News not too far in the past. I am more than glad to see Genaire defended with such elegance. This post should be a prerequisite for debate students worldwide. If you’re going to ridicule somebody for having an opinion you better be ready to defend that position with facts and logic instead of emotionally charged opinions and insults.
If there’s anything I can say about Genaire it’s that it’s obvious he posts what he does out of desire to see good in this world. The topics he addresses are generally geared towards change for the better and less corruption in leadership. It amazes me how anyone could use his good heart and desire to see good in the world as an opportunity to toss labels and generalize his character into something negative. Rayn just smashed this out of the park and I couldn’t have enjoyed it more.
Rayn: Thank you, Jordan! I truly appreciate your comment – more than I can even express in words! I’m elated!