- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 6,639
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Location
- Pennsylvania, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Is there a problem with a shortage of males attempting to become firemen in New York?
Ceteris paribus, if there were/are not enough male applicants, would you object (personally) if a female firefighter saved your life in this manner? Or would you rather die, out of principle?
I don't know, I simply asked a hypothetical and want to gauge the person's degree of principles.
Being dragged out of a burning building through whatever is burning in the path? Ummm..yes. Who the **** wants to be dragged through fire?
Ceteris paribus, if there were/are not enough male applicants, would you object (personally) if a female firefighter saved your life in this manner? Or would you rather die, out of principle?
I don't think you're going to get many folks arguing in favor of not being saved v being saved in such a manner that you are injured. However, if you can be saved in such a manner that you are not injured, why wouldn't you choose that?
And who said there aren't enough male applicants.? Liberals are making stuff up again.
It defeats the whole ****ing point of saving me from fire if you drag me through fire. lol.
It defeats the whole ****ing point of saving me from fire if you drag me through fire. lol.
Not necessarily - I'd much rather deal with burns and head injuries than be dead.
Really? Which jobs don't they have the ability for?
That's awesome! I'm sure we will all be happy that someone died or got injured when an un qualified fireman was sent to their home, but at least it was a woman.
Yes, but one of the jobs of a firefighter is to save the individual from being burned and injured. If they are being trained in such a way that causes injury and could very well cause burns it defeats a large purpose of their job. Sure, save me from the building, but how about doing it in such a way where I don't get burned. If women can't do the job effectively why in the hell would you hire them?
Yes, but one of the jobs of a firefighter is to save the individual from being burned and injured. If they are being trained in such a way that causes injury and could very well cause burns it defeats a large purpose of their job. Sure, save me from the building, but how about doing it in such a way where I don't get burned. If women can't do the job effectively why in the hell would you hire them?
the point was
1) there aren''t enough firefighters to get to your house
you die for certain
2) there could be enough firefighters (but some are "weak").
you get saved (and burned) sometimes, you get carried out (less burned) sometimes.
which do you choose in this experiment?
Know it's probably feeding the troll buuuttt...you did read the article, like the part it mentions two other Women passed with flying colors, and even the source said did better then half the people there?
Anyways, bit cautious as only one source on this one so far but if it is true, don't agree with the idea. I do agree with critics that it seems a bit silly to have much lower standards to get into training, but higher ones for once in the program. I'd think the FST would be administered at the beginning before wasting time on all the education etc. and finding out you aren't capable of meeting the actual physical requirements.
Ceteris paribus, if there were/are not enough male applicants, would you object (personally) if a female firefighter saved your life in this manner? Or would you rather die, out of principle?
I don't know, I simply asked a hypothetical and want to gauge the person's degree of principles.
the point was
1) there aren''t enough firefighters to get to your house
you die for certain
2) there could be enough firefighters (but some are "weak").
you get saved (and burned) sometimes, you get carried out (less burned) sometimes.
which do you choose in this experiment?
And if we keep putting lower pay / benefits into the job (killing pensions for those "lazy 50 year old public sector retirees") do you think men will continue to overwhelmingly apply for this job into the future?
if you don't know the difference between passing while meeting the standards and passing even though you failed the standards simply because we want more females.
then I can't help you figure it out.
the fact is she can't do the job. she doesn't meant the requirements and therefore should not be passed.
I am sorry but putting other peoples lives on the line including the person you are trying to rescue should not be up for affirmative action laws.
this is happening in the military where they want to put women on the front lines. this means carrying 60+ pounds of gear not including rifle and other equipment
for days on end in hostile terrain.
should we just lower the standards and have men die because jane can't make it over the 2nd hill and barely made it up the first one?
while there are some women that passed the test they did it and deserve the honor that is required.
however these agencies shouldn't be passing women simply because someone thinks there needs to be more women.
we are talking about peoples lives on the line.
the point was
1) there aren''t enough firefighters to get to your house
you die for certain
2) there could be enough firefighters (but some are "weak").
you get saved (and burned) sometimes, you get carried out (less burned) sometimes.
which do you choose in this experiment?
All affirmative action is wrong even when it's just for jobs at the post office. But when people get jobs as judges and cops and firemen because of race or sex, that's as wrong as anything can be. People are gonna die because de Blasio insists incompetent women get hired.
I bet the city will be liable to whoever is hurt or injured because of her.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?