Jump to content

Akeuw

Member
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Actually when you look at per hour women make more. It is a matter of how much you work.
  2. Women are physically weaker than men. There are exceptions of course, since it is a bell curve. The "Fireman Carry" is still extremely difficult for a woman lifting a 190 lb person. And I said AT LEAST 100 yards. That would kill most women. For the sake of equality I guess you are okay if he just dies. What you are essentially asking for is to lower the standards so women can get into the military. If you didn't lower the standards then you same people would be complaining that there are no women in the military. People who cant lift other people shouldn't be in the military. I don't care about your anecdotal fallacies, women have about an average 45% less upper body strength alone, let alone legs and arms. If you didn't know, in the army you are expected to piss in bottles while driving. There are no bathroom breaks, and they drive for long distances. It is the modern era, mobile warfare is the thing. And when you are not shitting in MRE bags you are still with the rest of the men squatting, shitting, and moving on. It is not the appropriate place for a woman. What the fuck, you look at a battle field, lets say in the harshest conditions like Stalingrad or Leningrad and you think women should be fighting there? The fucking dogs don't even stay there. You can look at Iraq and think a woman could fare well in there, but war is hell. You are talking about killing other people. Death, murder, shell shock. I'm not a white knight, I just think that it is no place for a woman. I'm not the ignorant one here. You are the one who is ignoring reality for the sake of equality.
  3. I really do not like the equality talk that people obsess over. The reality is that we are not all equal. On an individual level, some are smarter than others. On certain demographics, some are smarter than others. An example of that would be lower class Britain. Thomas Sowell made an interesting argument, the reason that a lot of them can't even multiply 9x7 is because they make a victim of themselves. Same with the African Americans. A lot of them are poor, but could it be because they always play themselves out to be the victims? Could this give people incentive to not work their absolute hardest? So I really do not like to see any demographic make themselves the victim. It will do nothing good for that group. I am talking of course about feminism. Women have always had the opportunity to work in the factories. They really had to do it during the industrial revolution. So the quality of life soon rose and women were able to stay and home and tend to the kids, who also didn't have to work. This is a better life. We are now at the point in time again where women usually have to work in most families. So why women would want equality to men is beyond me, they have had it for a while. The feminists of today want supremacy. Another thing I would add is that there are physical differences between men and women. Men have more upper body strength. Adding women to the military would require lowering the standards of men. In a combat situation, if someone is hit by a bullet, it is required that he is carried out. Most women can't carry a 190 pound man for 100 or more yards. This lowers combat effectiveness, and would result in more deaths. Also, in the army you have to dedicate in front of others, in bags and bottles. Very difficult for women. Women are only good for defensive combat, like the IDF.
  4. I don't know, but probably the mines, and the almost dead security guard going "Help me, I'm dying" then Freeman goes out and gets shot by the sniper. And when you walk out, and you are on a cliffs edge, I was like, holy shit. Really all the small things.
  5. Well then, I will stick to the i5 2500k
  6. I bought this game in the Steam holiday sale for 50% off. I cant play it because my current computer cant handle it... as well with a bunch of other games. Steam wallet raped me.
  7. I'm in the process of building a new gaming computer, for Crysis 2 and stuff like that. Originally, I was going for an Intel i5 2500k, but after some research, AMD doesn't seem as bad as I am always told. Cheaper, so I can invest in the new Radeon HD 7970 video card, which will be about $550, and a great video card is the most important part of a gaming build. I believe that using AMD CPU's and GPU's together adds a performance boost. I'm thinking about the AMD Phenom II X4 975 with a Noctua D14, and I don't know how far I can overclock, but 4.5 GHz should suffice, so hopefully I can do that. Another option is the AMD FX-6100 Zambezi, which seems like another good option, 4.5GHz with the D14 will do. I am really confused as to which of the two I should get. 4 cores vs 6 cores, does it matter that much, as the X4 975 has more GHz, but they are the same price. Another option, is the Intel i5 that much better to spend the extra money on the MoBo and CPU? I like the fact that the AMD sockets are more universal so MoBos are more future proof. Well this is as far as I know, so please tell me more.
×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.