Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Women Warriors? Why Warriors Were Mostly Men" video.

The scientific reasoning is good. But some expressions you use aren't very scientific. When you say that the different genders have different "reasons" and "purpose" and "roles" it will ultimately make your argument scientifically invalid. Nature doesn't work on the principles of "reason" or "purpose". Reason and purpose are artificial concepts that humans have invented in order to categorize and relate to their surroundings. Nature works on the principles of evolution, and cause and effect. We are a sexually dimorphic species, yes. But if you would've said that the sexes exhibit different physical characteristics, which evolutionary speaking makes them better suited or better adapted for different tasks then your choice of words would've been fine. But when you use words like "purpose" and "reason", you are implying design, which is frowned upon in the discourse of natural science, since one of the most basic tenets and assumptions about the universe, evolution etc. (based on the available evidence) is that it is not "designed" but evolved through a long chain of cause and effect. We don't have a "reason" for being here, and we don't have a specific "purpose" of being here, or doing what we do, other than the ones we invent for ourselves. We're here as a consequence, of a long chain of chemical reactions and cause and effect, where we're the end product of a long lineage of survivor species that just happened to live, while other species died out. 99% of all species that ever lived on planet earth are extinct today. The ones still alive comprise a mere percent of all life that ever lived on earth. So talking about "purpose" and "reason" for well... Any of us (man, ape or fish or whatever) is somewhat inappropriate... Linquistically speaking, which I know that you have a professional interest in, which is one of the reasons why i'm being this nitpicky. :) So to summarize: your claims are clearly based on scientific facts, but some of your choice of words invalidates them since natural science does not support ideas of "reason" and "purpose" (only religion does that, usually), only ideas of evolution and cause and effect.
50
Theo Sims: True, but largely irrelevant since there are no historical sources that any ancient society primarily objected to women fighting in wars based on "ease of repopulation". The reasons and values behind it were completeky different.
24
Frank Hill: Not necessarily. If it becomes more common to use powered exoskeletons for instance, the strength of the operator of such exoskeletons would be largely irrelevant, in the. same way that the physical strength of the operator of a car is largely irrelevant. The strength of the exoskeleton would be limited only by the strength of it's actuators and power source. The operators strength wouldn't be a factor. BUT, we're not there yet with exoskeletons. It is in development and making progress however, but we've still got some ways to go.
8
Rance Rossetto: Actually it does. Claiming that men and women have a different "purpose" or "reason" for being born the way they are is a realistically and thereby scientifically false statement. But I choose to interpret The Metatron by disregarding these terms, because I know he's an intellectual person and that he likely doesn't really mean "reason" or "purpose" just because he wishes to illustrate the case of sexual dimorphism.
8
EnigmicIdentity: Technically yes. "Function" would be a more apt term.
7
EnigmicIdentity: No, I didn't say it implies intelligence. I said it implies design. And since there is no proof of design in any living creature or the universe at large, other than what has been engineered by humans that is, concepts of "purpose" and "reason" doesn't belong in a scientific perspective. I don't have to crusade against religion. Religion is perfectly capable of failing in everything all on it's own.
7
No, we're not at that point yet. While it is true that technology has made physical body strength largely irrlevant when it comes to the actual fighting/killing, modern soldiers have been tasked with a lot of other roles that do require greater physical strength and endurance that the average woman (or man for that matter) is likely to possess. Any sex can pull a trigger of a rifle or press a button to activate a missile launch sequence. But marching through hostile terrain wearing gear/equipment on your person that almost matches your own bodyweight (something ancient warriors rarely did, since they often employed carts and horses to do that, and prefered to fight on open battlefields rather than sneaking through rough terrain or employ camouflage) and also be expected to hoist an injured comrade (weighing just as much as you, with just as much gear strapped to his person as you) on your shoulders and run with him to safety... It quickly becomes apparent that men and women are far from equal in suitability for modern warfare. At least for infantry service. (women as pilots, drivers or serving aboard naval vessels etc. doesn't pose the same problems)
5
Andrew Eriksson: Sometimes you have to, if you want ro get your message across without getting it misinterpreted.
5
Primalxbeast: Honestly, I doubt many feminists watch The Metatrons channel. Feminists aren't really into the history of warfare, medieval weapons and armour etc. Other than when they like to blame men for all the bad things of the world. If however The Metatron decided to make videos where he shares recipes for making cheese out of vaginal yeast or how refusing to use tampons and letting menstrual blood run down womens legs freely as a statement of empowerment, then feminists might be interested, since their intellectual capacity is largely relegated to discharges of offensive bodily fluids.
5
PS Moyer: Well seeing as how The Metatron, on several occasions throghout the video stress the point of not claiming one sex to be "better" than the other, one can assume that he knows just as well as most of us knows how infected the issue of gender- and identity politics is. If he didn't care, and did it all for pure entertainment, then he probably wouldn't have made such disclaimers at all. Therefore i'm pointing these semantic issues out, because this is exactly the kind of things that crazed femnazis and social justice warriors would choose to attack. If you however opt to stick to scientifically correct terminology and phrasing, then they have nothing to attack.
4
Mr Reaper: So we've been married to multiple partners for as long as we existed? Because that's what polygamy means: being married to multiple spouses at once. Last time I checked, marriage hasn't been around for all of human existence.
4
The scientific reasoning is good. But some expressions you use aren't very scientific. When you say that the different genders have different "reasons" and "purpose" and "roles" it will ultimately make your argument scientifically invalid. Nature doesn't work on the principles of "reason" or "purpose". Reason and purpose are artificial concepts that humans have invented in order to categorize and relate to their surroundings. Nature works on the principles of evolution, and cause and effect. We are a sexually dimorphic species, yes. But if you would've said that the sexes exhibit different physical characteristics, which evolutionary speaking makes them better suited or better adapted for different tasks then your choice of words would've been fine. But when you use words like "purpose" and "reason", you are implying design, which is frowned upon in the discourse of natural science, since one of the most basic tenets and assumptions about the universe, evolution etc. (based on the available evidence) is that it is not "designed" but evolved through a long chain of cause and effect. We don't have a "reason" for being here, and we don't have a specific "purpose" of being here, or doing what we do, other than the ones we invent for ourselves. We're here as a consequence, of a long chain of chemical reactions and cause and effect, where we're the end product of a long lineage of survivor species that just happened to live, while other species died out. 99% of all species that ever lived on planet earth are extinct today. The ones still alive comprise a mere percent of all life that ever lived on earth. So talking about "purpose" and "reason" for well... Any of us (man, ape or fish or whatever) is somewhat inappropriate... Linquistically speaking, which I know that you have a professional interest in, which is one of the reasons why i'm being this nitpicky. :) So to summarize: your claims are clearly based on scientific facts, but some of your choice of words invalidates them since natural science does not support ideas of "reason" and "purpose" (only religion does that, usually), only ideas of evolution and cause and effect.
3
MatJan86: Actually no, the primary research into powered exoskeletons going on right now is mostly concerned with giving the individual the capacity to carry heavier loads without getting fatigued as quickly. The concept of armored exoskeletons is still on the drawingboards and not a primary area of research at the moment.
2
MatJan86: The idea is to abandon the exo if it gets damaged. The point is to reduce fatigue in soldiers having to carry heavy loads and march long distances to their target, since well rested and unfatigued soldiers perform better than tired and fatigued ones. The soldiers will still be able to carry their equipment manually if need be. The exo is supposed to be an aid, which might get damaged and abandoned during the mission, just like any other piece of equipment.
2
EnigmicIdentity: I really don't care what I "seem" to you though.
2
Sausymayo: Please point out where I have ever tried to contradict that statement.
2
zeroangelmk1: No, nature doesn't breed species. Breeding is deliberate, and a human concept. Evolution is non-deliberate. Breeding also requires a design, plan or purpose behind the breed in question. Evolution doesn't.
2
JayneCobb88: There is no "purpose" to any of these things. Not even a womb. There is an observable FUNCTION in most of them however. But function and purpose are not the same thing. Purpose require deliberation, intent, design. Function just is and happens to work. And sorry no, statistics is not equal to science. If statistics alone was enough to make scientifically valid statements, then I could claim that ice cream is a very effective cure and inocculation against the common cold virus. Because people usually consume the most ice cream during the hotter periods of the year, and at that same time breakouts of the common cold virus plummets, so statistically speaking: ice cream is an effective deterrent against the common cold. And you have to accept this as "scientific truth" because I have the statistics to back it up. :) Luckily, no real scientist accepts statistics alone as scientific proof.
2
John Doe: Israel "wastes viable childbearers on the battlefield". Doesn't seem to be doing their country any diservice.
1
Meister Eder: "Hopefully"... You want to rest your life on "hope"? :) The "hope" that the selection process isn't flawed? The "hope" that incompetent idiots won't advance through the ranks? The "hope" that backroom deals and corruption doesn't exist within the armed forces? Sounds like a very big leap of faith there. ;)
1
kestrel archer: Yes, "predisposition" is also a very common term in papers related to the study of biology, and it is indeed very important to illustrate changes over time. But if you work with this for a living then you probably know about these issues that I adress, right? Reason and purpose implies design, and design is pretty much the opposite way of something acquiring a certain shape or particular properties to evolution. One happens as a result of a deliberate act with a particular goal or function in mind. The other happens as a result of a lengthy evolutionary. process and specific events and properties of the enviroment that determines the current shape of something. I guess you could compare it to the way rock is shaped on earth. A sculpture with a specific shape is designed by a sculptor. The sculptor had a REASON and PURPOSE for making the sculpture a certain way. Rock cliffs by the ocean however also change shape over time, as a result of erosion from the ocean wavea crashing against them for thousands of years. There's no reason or purpose behind it, because the shape of the cliffs are basically "evolved" into it's current shape.
1
Trisha Demilion: You can't claim that something is "designed" when there was no conscious thought involved in it's making whatsoever. Using the word "design" in that context is a misuse of the wordin question, and just shows that you need to study your dictionary a bit better. Also there's no "goal" to survive either. The survival of certain species is just a consequence of how genes function in the natural enviroment. If survival is a stated "goal" then nature/evolution/god/whatever is doing a pretty piss poor job of it sincr only one percent of all living species in the history of the earth are alive today whereas the other 99 percent are extinct. If your success rate is only a mere 1 percent, and for millions of years attempting it even, then you're either horribly, horribly bad at what you're attempting to do... Or (and I'll go with Occhams razor on this one) there's not really any conscious effort or GOAL involved. You're basically just rolling the proverbial dice and let them land as they may.
1
Ghost Hawk: A "troll" you apparently can't break or disprove the arguments of.
1
Heyprinny: Yes I am. Which I've admitted even in my first post about this subject. Because a linguist usually takes some interest in semantics.
1
Izora: Uhm, you do know that there are litterally thousands of species of animals where the sexual dimorphism favors the females in strength and size, right? You can't compare species with eachother. It's not scientific. The biological and behavioural rules that applies to lions, does not necessarily apply to lions. Or humans for that matter. And no, I don't sound like a feminist (i'm actually anti-feminist). I sound like a scientist, who recognize that this type of incorrect terminology is just the kind of stuff that an actual feminist would use to slander and discredit someone with.
1
Chuck Norris: That door swings both ways, you know. How DO YOU KNOW that we do have a "purpose" or "reason" for being here or the way we are? That's right you don't. But if we are to debate a specific subject, we can choose to either look at it from a perspective based on evidence, or a perspective based on bronze age tribal fetisch worship that has no basis in anything but human imagination. I see no reason to waste time with the latter, due to it's arbitrary and nonsensical nature. Therefore I approach the subject matter with the former perspective. And using the former perspective, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any living organism has a "reason" or "purpose" for being the way it is. In fact, all the avaliable evidence points to living organisms being the way they are as a result of an evolutionary process, brought forth by external enviromental factors.
1
I'm sorry, butthurt religitards. I just don't find your perspective or completely arbitrary model of explaining the origin of the species particularly intriguing, interesting or worth wasting my time on. I'm a dealer in evidence and facts. Your bronze age tribal fetisch fairytale for adults just doesn't interest me. Now, why don't you leave us adults to discuss the nature of reality and go back to the kiddie table where you'll humans with a more similar mental capacity to yours?
1
Chuck Norris: I didn't respond because it's an intellectual dead end trying to "debate" with a religitard such as yourself. :) I don't get triggered. I merely wanted to clarify that religitards needn't bother adressing me, because I have no interest in discussing the matter with some manchild who believe in fairytales.
1
Trisha Demilion: I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just giving my honest opinion of adults believing in imaginary friends in the sky. And no, I haven't been corrected. My argument is still the most solid and scientifically sound here. Yours are the brittle arguments that can't stand up to scrutiny, and you're just being sore losers about it. But it's okay, I understand why you react the way you do. Kind of pathetic, but it's no skin off my nose. :)
1
Chuck Norris: It's pretty obvious that you are religious since you initially tried to attack my argument by implying that my argument was based around a dislike of religion. You're not exactly "subtle", you know. And no, I haven't read most of your posts. Like I said: i'm not interested in your perspective. I know i'm right, and I don't need to convince you that I am, because your conviction or lack thereof doesn't change the fact that i'm right.
1
Trisha Demilion: So oxygen's "role" is to make us survive? :) Got any proof of that? No, didn't think so. Last time I checked, Oxygen is just a very common element in the universe, and life on earth evolved around oxygen and use it as a fuel of sorts to sustain itself. Just because living organisms depend on oxygen to survive, it doesn't mean that oxygen's "role" is to make us live. Oxygen just is. It doesn't have an explicit role or purpose. But living organisms have evolved to make use of naturally occuring oxygen, jut that doesn't mean someone or something "put" oxygen there in order for us to survive. The one who needs to stop arguing here is you, since you make illogical assumptions about the universe and it's elements without any evidence to back them up. Your model and use of words implies that oxygen was formed to "fit" life, when in reality, life evolved to "fit" around oxygen.
1
Trisha Demilion: No they don't. You don't seem to understand the meaning behind the words "role" and "purpose". Becaude both of them not only implies but ASSUMES a DESIGNER. You can't have "roles" without someone or something assigning said roles. Roles don't just pop up out of the blue. Likewise "purpose" cannot exist without a creator designing something to have a specific puropose in mind. You also seem to have trouble grasping the fact that objects can exist without implicit or explicit goals, purposes or roles whatsoever. You seem obssessive about an idea that everything is connected into some intricate design, which is illogical since there is no proof of a designer. If I throw a bunch of pebbles on the ground, you wouldn't just jump to the conclusion that their properties and placement has a "role" or "purpose". You'd just see pebbles on the ground laying in a random order. It's the same thing with the rest of the universe. Oxygen doesn't exist because it has a stated "role". Oxygen exists as a result of natural and RANDOM chemical reactions meeting particular criteria to terminate into the formation of oxygen. You clearly need to study more semantics AND natural science.
1
Trisha Demilion: I see that you don't present any counter arguments.You're just trying to deflect by bringing up some bullshit hippie crap about the "possibility" that some "deeper meaning" with everything exists. To which you yet again haven't produced any kind of evidence for. Go back to school, you amateur. It's clear you won't beat me in a scientific debate. You're simply too ignorant and uneducated.
1
Chuck Norris: But that's not what was said from the start. What was said was that women supposedly are born with a specific "reason" or "purpose" supposedly given to them by nature, which is a statement which there is no evidence to support.
1
Ghost Hawk: You're catching on, grasshopper. :) Life has no objective purpose or meaning. Or at the very least, no evidence exist to suggest that life has any objective purpose or meaning. Until we find some, it would be intellectually dishonest to assume that it does. People however tend to create subjective meanings and purpose to their lives. That is, whichever purpose or meaning that the individual believes he or she has in life. But this purpose or meaning is largely an invention of the imagination of these individuals. It's not really grounded in objective fact. And there is strong evidence to suggest that this behaviour (the invention of purpose and meaning to ones own existence) is a natural byproduct of genetics and having a comparably high level of intelligence compared to other species. The behaviour tends to promote survival, and therefore it exist. If it didn't, the behaviour would've died out with the speciemens that exhibits it.
1
Ghost Hawk: I'll make a comparison to video games to make it more easily digested for ya'll. You people use words and idea that suggests that life is like a storydriven, on rails videogame. There's a very specific end goal in the game that the players reach, and all the factors within the game are created with the purpose of reaching the end of the game. But the evidence doesn't support that theory. The evidence rather suggest that life and existence is like a sandbox type of game. Like Minecraft or Garrys Mod or whatever. The users are pretty much free to do as they like, and the game doesn't have a specific "end" in mind. The only limitations to what the users can do in the sandbox style game is governed by the "rules" of the game (rules like gravity, electromagnetism, the need to eat, breathe, drink etc.).
1
Sagrotan: Yes, I do deny it. Just becaus you present rules in the form of natural laws (like evolution, electromagnetism, gravity etc.) it doesn't prove that there is a purpose to anything. It's like saying that lightning has a "purpose" when it strikes a tree (that lightnings reason for existing was to obliterate trees) or that gravitys "purpose" for existing is to make sure that meteor crash into planets. You don't go around assuming that gravity has a "purpose" when a coconut falls on top of your head and clocks you. So there's no reason that men, women or the evolved mechanisms of conception and childbirth has a "reason" or "purpose" either. Because conception, and childbirth are both products of the same BLIND, DUMB AND UNINTELLIGENT natural forces like the gravity that cause your head to get hit by a falling coconut.
1
Sagrotan: I've read the Selfish Gene, and studied the phenomenon at university level. The author of that book would agree with me in this debate completely. It's you people who don't seem to grasp the meaning of the word "purpose". I suggest you go read a dictionary.
1
Ghost Hawk: Also, as to your nonsense about chaos being unable to form structures, you should go watch the "Why do people laugh at creationists?"-video series by Youtuber Thunderf00t, and he'll illustrate it with perfect clarity.
1
Trisha Demilion: I don't have to validate my arguments. They do it perfectly well on their own merit and logical consistency. The insults are just me indulging myself. :)
1
Trisha Demilion: Why would it matter to me if I look "dumb" in the eyes of some christian muppet? In what way would it appeal to my rational self-interest to "appeal" to some idiot who treats some bronze age fairytale about a fictional skydaddy as historical fact? What do I stand to lose? :) I've already explained myself enough here. If you really want to know, then scroll back up a couple of posts. I'm not here to repeat myself to religious plebs like yourself.
1
Trisha Demilion: I have already proved it. Go crack open a book about evolution and it'll explain it all to you. But you"re too ignorant to read, so I won't hold my breath...
1