Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

New York approves Same Sex Marriage.Follow

#202 Jul 01 2011 at 9:52 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,813 posts
idiggory wrote:
Lol, what's funny is that if he IS in the army, he could get in serious sh*t for this.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I guess you're just going to have to continue to live in denial/doubt.
I doubt you're able to figure out which way the gun goes...

So, yeah.


In your direction?

amirite?


Too bad I'm not vindictive.


In trouble for what?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#203 Jul 02 2011 at 2:27 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
I am very fond of internet anonymity, especially the capacity to appear in typescript and not visuals. Alma has the right not to supply a visual if he doesn't want to. It's up to me to gauge the reliability and veracity of what some anonymous person on the internet is saying. I think over the very long term, it's safe to say you get a good picture on particular topics, if the person maintains an even stance on a topic. It's Bijou's right to still have withheld judgement on Almalieque's veracity, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm inclined to believe Alma is an officer in the USA.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#204 Jul 02 2011 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
I've never believed he was in the military. I think he knows someone who is, and that's where he gets his info.
#205 Jul 02 2011 at 7:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
He's totally in the military. He's too mind numbingly stubborn and ill-informed to be employed elsewhere. He's what everyone expects from the military. He is the cliche.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2011 10:28am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#206 Jul 02 2011 at 8:20 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,813 posts
Quote:
I am very fond of internet anonymity, especially the capacity to appear in typescript and not visuals. Alma has the right not to supply a visual if he doesn't want to. It's up to me to gauge the reliability and veracity of what some anonymous person on the internet is saying. I think over the very long term, it's safe to say you get a good picture on particular topics, if the person maintains an even stance on a topic. It's Bijou's right to still have withheld judgement on Almalieque's veracity, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm inclined to believe Alma is an officer in the USA.


Thanks.

I have no problem with providing pictures, but what's the point if you're just going to deny them as well? I posted my transcript and that wasn't believed.

Nadenu wrote:
I've never believed he was in the military. I think he knows someone who is, and that's where he gets his info.


Do you really believe that? Why would I go through the trouble of doing that? To get more "respect"?. It's already obvious that people on this forum think the military is stupid and people have claimed that I try to come off "intelligent", so wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? What possible benefit would I get from saying that I was in the military in this forum?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#207 Jul 02 2011 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
12,970 posts
More fuel for your persecution complex?
____________________________
Banh
#208 Jul 02 2011 at 9:15 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,813 posts
Spoonless wrote:
More fuel for your persecution complex?


Except I didn't realize the lack of respect for the military on this thread till after the fact. The only other explanation would be the belief that I wanted to gain "respect" from the forum, but that is also a conflict of interest with my "persecution complex".

So, it just doesn't make any sense any way you look at it for me to lie about it and for you not to believe it.

Just like people thought I was lying about the DADT training. There's no reason to lie about it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#209 Jul 02 2011 at 9:25 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
12,970 posts
Quote:
Except I didn't realize the lack of respect for the military on this thread till after the fact.
How long have you been posting here? Smiley: lol
____________________________
Banh
#210 Jul 02 2011 at 9:56 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,813 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Quote:
Except I didn't realize the lack of respect for the military on this thread till after the fact.
How long have you been posting here? Smiley: lol


I didn't start posting in the OoT and Asylum till much later..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#211 Jul 02 2011 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
12,970 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Quote:
Except I didn't realize the lack of respect for the military on this thread till after the fact.
How long have you been posting here? Smiley: lol


I didn't start posting in the OoT and Asylum till much later..
Apparently you've been debating in the OoT on the subject of homosexuality since 2004. Smiley: wink
____________________________
Banh
#212 Jul 02 2011 at 10:31 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,813 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Quote:
Except I didn't realize the lack of respect for the military on this thread till after the fact.
How long have you been posting here? Smiley: lol


I didn't start posting in the OoT and Asylum till much later..
Apparently you've been debating in the OoT on the subject of homosexuality since 2004. Smiley: wink


Which is still later. If you look at my posts, I primarily was on the RDM and main forums. Then I took some breaks from the OoT all together.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#213 Jul 02 2011 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
12,970 posts
That was mainly to bring a little levity to the thread, but two months after your first post is "much later"? In any case, 74% of your posts are in either the Asylum or Out of Topic forums.
____________________________
Banh
#214 Jul 02 2011 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
12,970 posts
If you want to amend it say you didn't start posting primarily in the OoT and Asylum until much later, I'll give you that. Of course, I fully expect you to just say that that is what you meant in the first place and claim it's my fault for interpreting it differently.

Regardless, you've been posting primarily in the OoT and Asulym since 2008. If over the past 3+ years you legitimately haven't figured out how they are going to treat someone's your military status, you're far more dense than any of us have given you credit for being.

Edited for a higher degree of accuracy.


Edited, Jul 2nd 2011 1:52pm by Spoonless
____________________________
Banh
#215 Jul 02 2011 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
Spoonless, you should consider going out for a jog or something. Honestly, you are researching Alma's posting history and coming up with stats.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#216 Jul 02 2011 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
12,970 posts
I'm at work, or I would. Besides, doing a couple forum searches is hardly strenuous. It was mostly just morbid curiosity to see how Alma posted when he started. It's pretty entertaining to see what people posted like years ago, and I was fairly amused that his first foray into the OoT was to post in a thread about homosexuals.
____________________________
Banh
#217 Jul 02 2011 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
Spoonless wrote:
I'm at work, or I would. Besides, doing a couple forum searches is hardly strenuous. It was mostly just morbid curiosity to see how Alma posted when he started. It's pretty entertaining to see what people posted like years ago, and I was fairly amused that his first foray into the OoT was to post in a thread about homosexuals.
Does he even get involved in other threads?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#218 Jul 02 2011 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
12,970 posts
I'm not going to do your research for you.
____________________________
Banh
#219 Jul 02 2011 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Guess I'm glad I'm not a military cliche.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#220 Jul 02 2011 at 11:47 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Quote:
It's already obvious that people on this forum think the military is stupid and people have claimed that I try to come off "intelligent", so wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? What possible benefit would I get from saying that I was in the military in this forum?


Few of us probably think the military is stupid. All of us think you are stupid. You're confusing the two.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#221 Jul 02 2011 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Spoonless has fallen into the trap now. Feel free to hate yourself.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#222 Jul 02 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
12,970 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Spoonless has fallen into the trap now. Feel free to hate yourself.
Oh, I do.
____________________________
Banh
#223 Jul 02 2011 at 2:22 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,813 posts
Spoonless wrote:
That was mainly to bring a little levity to the thread, but two months after your first post is "much later"? In any case, 74% of your posts are in either the Asylum or Out of Topic forums.


It is now, but most of them weren't. It's much later, because even though my first post in OoT was 2 months apart, majority of my time was spent in RDM/main forum.

Spoon wrote:
If you want to amend it say you didn't start posting primarily in the OoT and Asylum until much later, I'll give you that. Of course, I fully expect you to just say that that is what you meant in the first place and claim it's my fault for interpreting it differently.

Regardless, you've been posting primarily in the OoT and Asulym since 2008. If over the past 3+ years you legitimately haven't figured out how they are going to treat someone's your military status, you're far more dense than any of us have given you credit for being.


That's exactly what happened. And guess what? I commissioned in 2006, 2 years before I primarily started posting in OoT. (I didn't start posting in the Asylum till this year I think.). It was in 2008, when I believe I mentioned anything about the Army. That's when people thought I was a poor, uneducated white woman for wanting Clinton to win.

So, as I said. I didn't know the ignorance and disrespect towards the military till AFTER the fact.

Thank you for doing all of the leg-work for me to make that point. I fully expect you place the blame on me for not explaining myself properly for you being right in one area, but overall wrong in the topic at hand.

Idiggory wrote:
Few of us probably think the military is stupid. All of us think you are stupid. You're confusing the two.


Not at all. With numerous statements made throughout this forum, it is obvious that people think the Army is full of stupid people. Don't try to back out of it now. Man up and accept what you say.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#224 Jul 02 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
12,970 posts
Quote:
Thank you for doing all of the leg-work for me to make that point. I fully expect you place the blame on me for not explaining myself properly for you being right in one area, but overall wrong in the topic at hand.
I already said I'd concede the point if you meant posting primarily. Your initial post said "started posting". I'm not sure what you're saying I'm wrong about with regards to the overall topic at hand.

To quote:
Alma wrote:
Except I didn't realize the lack of respect for the military on this thread till after the fact.
Bolding is mine. If you first introduced being in the military back in 2008, and have been berated for it on and off over the past 3+ years (for surely this is not the first thread you've been made fun of for being military in), how could you be surprised by how people responded in this thread?

If you meant "on this forum," I will give you that point as well. I'm not unreasonable. I assumed you meant "in this thread".
____________________________
Banh
#225 Jul 02 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
8,813 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for doing all of the leg-work for me to make that point. I fully expect you place the blame on me for not explaining myself properly for you being right in one area, but overall wrong in the topic at hand.
I already said I'd concede the point if you meant posting primarily. Your initial post said "started posting". I'm not sure what you're saying I'm wrong about with regards to the overall topic at hand.

To quote:
Alma wrote:
Except I didn't realize the lack of respect for the military on this thread till after the fact.
Bolding is mine. If you first introduced being in the military back in 2008, and have been berated for it on and off over the past 3+ years (for surely this is not the first thread you've been made fun of for being military in), how could you be surprised by how people responded in this thread?

If you meant "on this forum," I will give you that point as well. I'm not unreasonable. I assumed you meant "in this thread".


My bad, I meant on this forum. I was wrong.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#226 Jul 02 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Quote:
Quote:
Few of us probably think the military is stupid. All of us think you are stupid. You're confusing the two.

Not at all. With numerous statements made throughout this forum, it is obvious that people think the Army is full of stupid people. Don't try to back out of it now. Man up and accept what you say.


Once again, logic fails you.

Let me show you why:

"That school is full of stupid people."
"That school is stupid."

See the difference?

The army has a very, very large population of stupid people, yes. It's because recruitment tactics specifically target them.

But the army as an entity isn't stupid. It does many stupid things, yeah. But it's actually an extremely intelligent organization. Thing is, 90% of its members could be three IQ points away from licking windows and it would still be an extremely intelligent, able entity.

I'm happy to admit that I don't like the military. No problem with that at all. But that has very, very little to do with the soldiers and everything to do with those top 10% of members (AKA, the ones who by and large are probably highly intelligent).

You're trying to pull the same ridiculous argument that conservatives threw at people trying to end the wars overseas for the past 10 years--like that somehow means we are against the soldiers.

Now, I'm happy to admit I'm against YOU, especially you in a military capacity. But that has nothing to do with the military itself.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#227 Jul 02 2011 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Good evening!

The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies -- that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms -- of the type so often committed by my wife.

"All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood."

This is, of course, pure bullsh*t! Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted. All of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. Obvious one would think.

However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition. Consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.

For example: given the premise, "All fish live underwater" and "All mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "All mackerel live underwater", but that "If she buys kippers it will not rain" or that "Trout live in trees" or even that "I do not love her any more."

This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap" and it gets me very IRRITATED because it is not logical!

"There will be no supper tonight," she will sometimes cry upon my return home.

"Why not?" I will ask.

"Because I have been screwing the milkman all day," she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made.

"But," I will wearily point out, "even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may, logically, be got."

"You don't love me any more!" she will now often postulate. "If you did, you would give me one now and again so that I would not have to rely on that rancid Pakistani for my orgasms!"

"I will give you one after you have got me my supper!" I now usually scream, "but not before" -- as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper.

"God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!" she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat.

"@#%^ supper!" I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yoghurt ...

I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell, sex is more fun than logic. One cannot prove this, but it IS in the same sense that Mount Everest IS, or that Alma Cogan ISN'T.

Goodnight.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2011 8:29pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#228 Jul 02 2011 at 5:33 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Quote:
For example: given the premise, "All fish live underwater" and "All mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "All mackerel live underwater", but that "If she buys kippers it will not rain" or that "Trout live in trees" or even that "I do not love her any more."

This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap" and it gets me very IRRITATED because it is not logical!


lololol
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#229 Jul 02 2011 at 6:05 PM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
I vote we start saying LOGIC! in the same way we currently say SCIENCE!

Vote
Aye! :1 (11.1%)
Nay! :0 (0.0%)
Boobs are awesome:3 (33.3%)
This thread is stupid :5 (55.6%)
Total:9


Vote now or forever hold your piece. (cwutididthar?)
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#230 Jul 02 2011 at 7:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,813 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Few of us probably think the military is stupid. All of us think you are stupid. You're confusing the two.

Not at all. With numerous statements made throughout this forum, it is obvious that people think the Army is full of stupid people. Don't try to back out of it now. Man up and accept what you say.


Once again, logic fails you.

Let me show you why:

"That school is full of stupid people."
"That school is stupid."

See the difference?

The army has a very, very large population of stupid people, yes. It's because recruitment tactics specifically target them.

But the army as an entity isn't stupid. It does many stupid things, yeah. But it's actually an extremely intelligent organization. Thing is, 90% of its members could be three IQ points away from licking windows and it would still be an extremely intelligent, able entity.

I'm happy to admit that I don't like the military. No problem with that at all. But that has very, very little to do with the soldiers and everything to do with those top 10% of members (AKA, the ones who by and large are probably highly intelligent).

You're trying to pull the same ridiculous argument that conservatives threw at people trying to end the wars overseas for the past 10 years--like that somehow means we are against the soldiers.

Now, I'm happy to admit I'm against YOU, especially you in a military capacity. But that has nothing to do with the military itself.


You're full of BS..

"The army has a very, very large population of stupid people, yes. It's because recruitment tactics specifically target them."


What is that based off of? In what aspect of stupidity? The biggest recruiting tool the military uses is college education. So that alone completely contradicts your claim.

You're simply trying to back peddle.

If you had something to objectively go by to say that the Army has a lot of stupid people, then you could make that argument, but you don't. You have nothing. Ironically, the distinction you made is perfect in my favor. I was not in reference to the latter but the former. I was not implying that you think the Army as an entity is stupid, but the people within the entity.

You just said that it recruits many stupid people, so I'm on the mark.. You think the people who serve in the Army are stupid. What am I missing?

Many Soldiers believe the Army is stupid in many ways, but not necessarily the people, but the rules and regulations that we have to follow. So, I very well understand the difference and we're saying the same thing. You think the people who serve in the Army are stupid.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#231 Jul 02 2011 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Protip: Pedal and peddle don't mean the same thing.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#232 Jul 02 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Even if I'm wrong, and the army is populated by nothing but intelligent people, the fact still stands that I've never said the army is stupid. :)

And the army has had to, in the last decade, lower its aptitude and moral recruitment codes in order to meet their recruitment target.

Linky, though from 2006.

They doubled the percent of soldiers allowed that failed the aptitude test, and 17% of the recruits had moral (or medical, so note that this 17% could be much lower) strikes against them.

The aptitude test guidelines are such that you need to be "in at least the 31st percentile. The minimum score is 32 for the Marines, 36 for the Air Force, and 35 for the Navy." Exceptions can be made (and have risen drastically in recent years), but law requires that no one in the bottom 10 percent may join. And, considering what the bottom 10% means, that number should probably be higher...

Linky 2!

Around 30% of the air force scored less than 50.

83% of army personnel don't even have a high school diploma, or GED equivalent (which includes 15 college credits). Right now, the lowest army service members have scores as low as 26.

But if the air force has 30% under 50, the army likely has more. That means that the majority of the army's forces are probably below average intelligence.

The navy and marines are both higher, but the article doesn't give statistics for them.

In retrospect, stupid wasn't the word to use (since I can't comment on how idiotic they are--that was you coloring my opinion). But I'll stand by my estimation that the majority of military service members are of below-average intelligence.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#233 Jul 03 2011 at 1:36 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
Lolgaxe is the winner of ONE INTERNET. Smiley: king
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#234 Jul 03 2011 at 1:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,119 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Lolgaxe is the winner of ONE INTERNET. Smiley: king

My Lolgaxe.doc file has him being the winner of now 6 Internets.
____________________________
This sig better be appropriate...
#235 Jul 03 2011 at 7:57 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,813 posts
Idiggory wrote:
Even if I'm wrong, and the army is populated by nothing but intelligent people, the fact still stands that I've never said the army is stupid. :)


And I wasn't disputing that.

Idiggory wrote:
83% of army personnel don't even have a high school diploma, or GED equivalent (which includes 15 college credits). Right now, the lowest army service members have scores as low as 26.


The Army allows more recruits to enlist with a GED than any other branch. In Fiscal Year 2008, only 83 percent of new Army recruits had a high school diploma (or at least 15 college credits), comparted with the Department of Defense (DOD) average of 92 percent.


1. You misquoted, which should have been blatantly obvious to you. Did you really think that 83% of the Army didn't have a high school diploma or GED equivalent?

2. The drops of the standards of recruitment vary if we're at war. It's a historical pattern that you can look up if you want. Since we're a volunteer Army, recruiting standards drop during war time and bonuses and incentives rise. As we leave war, the standards go back up, bonuses goes away and the dirt bags are kicked out. I'm not equating homosexuals as dirtbags, but that's the like when people "come out" during or before a deployment, they make them serve their deployment, then kick them out when they get back. The military WILL use you as number, that doesn't mean that you're the standard.

3. Standardized tests only test how well you can take that particular test and nothing else.

4. You have no idea on the difficulty on the exam to know if "30" or "50" is even good or what it represents. Most people that I know, took the ASVAB during school with no preparation just to get out of class. That's exactly what I did. I had no clue what it was. Others didn't and I'm sure many of them didn't even take it seriously, since they were just wanting to get out of class. People have study classes months out with practice tests and retakes on other exams such as the ACT/SAT/GRE/LSAT.

Most people that I've talked to didn't actually study for the ASVAB, they just took it. For the longest, I believed the ASVAB to be a recruiting tool disguised as a test, just to get your point of contact and tell you how awesome you scored on the exam.

5. Lowering the minimum score doesn't equate to everyone receiving that score. Your link said as low as 26 with a WAIVER. That means, 26 isn't the standard, but for certain scenarios, one can still be accepted with a 26 score and a waiver.

Idiggory wrote:
In retrospect, stupid wasn't the word to use (since I can't comment on how idiotic they are--that was you coloring my opinion). But I'll stand by my estimation that the majority of military service members are of below-average intelligence.


No problem. And I'll stand by my statement that you're ignorant and have nothing to back up your claim. For starters, I'm sure you just looked that information up, which means that you didn't know any of that before you made your opinion(ignoring my counters above).

Secondly, what are you comparing that too? Where are the stats of civilian scores? How can you measure the intelligence of the military based on an exam that primarily only the military takes with no scores of the people outside the military?

You're just being ignorant and prejudice. Anyone can google a stat to support their claim, hence why I argued against statistics. Here's a stat from 2006.

In the wake of Sen. John Kerry’s public gaffe regarding how smart our soldiers in Iraq might or might not be; the question in the minds of most voters ? beyond whether not the Massachusetts Senator’s comments were intentionally maligning American soldiers or not ? seems to be “how smart are our soldiers?”

The answer is, “very.”

In the modern American military, between 93 and 95 percent of current recruits have high school diplomas, compared with 75 to 85 percent of their military-age civilian counterparts. Those averages are based on far too many studies to cite here, but no one on either side of the political fence is disputing the numbers ? though some may not want to promote them as much as others ? yet it is only one measure of just how smart our young men and women in uniform truly are.

According to a U.S. Department of Defense document, Who is Volunteering for Today’s Military, “nearly two-thirds of today’s recruits are drawn from the top-half of America in math and verbal aptitudes.”



You haven't provided any reason why you established your belief that majority of the U.S. Army is "below intelligent". You just made some crap up and went with it. That's cool, just don't proclaim it as being the truth.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2011 3:58pm by Almalieque

Edited, Jul 3rd 2011 4:00pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 66 All times are in CDT
elyrussel, Anonymous Guests (65)