Donald Trump running for president

Jiigzz said:
How many jobs require you to lift a 350lb person in an ambulance? Yup, let's stop people from having a job in paramedicine because of a golden nugget scenario.

How's this: you're in the army, the guy next to you wears glasses. A blast throws them off his face and now he can't see far away. Bullets fly, another man gets hit. The guy in the glasses was meant to be watching your right flank and now a buddy is down. You now demand that anybody who wears glasses cannot enter the army.

Or

You're an 80kg male , decent build and are fit and you are a police officer, You approach a man, he has a decent 30kg on you, all of it muscle and can fight. He hits you. You go down. The police enforce a rule you must be a 150kg+ bodybuilder to become a cop because one guy is 120kg of muscle. You are fired immediately for not meeting this requirement.

Cmon.
Click to expand...

So if the job criteria is being able to lift a certain amount and somebody can't meet the criteria and gets the job anyway, that's still "equality" to you?

Could you carry a 350lb guy to safety? Maybe not based on your own description, but are you better suited to accomplish that over someone who can't even lift 150lbs? C'mon man, practice what you preach and be real.

Why do you think there is a criteria in the first place? Nothing is ever 100%, but there is a mathematical field known as statistics which proves some are better suited than others. What if the proper medic who met the criteria called in sick? I guess the 350lb lady is just screwed if Miss. Lightweight shows up, because she will have far lower odds of saving that life. It's unethical to risk a life just to be PC.
 
Cool thing about the 21st century is that none of that matters.

-Give the paramedics a cart with a jack (standard) just roll or pull her onto it while collapsed.

-Give the soldier contacts. Or surgery.

-Use a taser on the big bad guy, floored.

All you need are those most educated and trained to the task. We're a resourceful species
 
Jiigzz said:
Females are not built physically like a male, can you really expect the same criteria applies? In situations where a person is obviously trapped, they will just send someone else in. It's really not that difficult
Click to expand...

You would just set a system where you have designated tasks to a specific set of abilities and skill set.
 
Matthandyo said:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Investigations on Obama administration ROFL! How's that meeting with the attorney general Bill? LOL

At least Reagan didn't order the assassination of his own people in our embassy's.
 
ax1 said:
Investigations on Obama administration ROFL! How's that meeting with the attorney general Bill? LOL

At least Reagan didn't order the assassination of his own people in our embassy's.
Click to expand...

Oohhhh it was a offensive video that's why our people were told to stand down to save Stevens, what difference does it make! Time to obstruct justice and wipe my hard drives .....Oh Billy, talk to that attorney general kunt for me and straighten her out!!!
 
Jiigzz said:
Females are not built physically like a male, can you really expect the same criteria applies? In situations where a person is obviously trapped, they will just send someone else in. It's really not that difficult
Click to expand...

That's not at all how it works. If you're part of a team, squad, platoon, etc. Your team gets sent in, they don't stop and think about which members are most appropriate for the situation. That would be like female cops only patrolling areas with people small enough for them to handle or situations they could emotionally handle. That just doesn't happen.
 
ax1 said:
Oohhhh it was a offensive video that's why our people were told to stand down to save Stevens, what difference does it make! Time to obstruct justice and wipe my hard drives .....Oh Billy, talk to that attorney general kunt for me and straighten her out!!!
Click to expand...

Did you just quote yourself? Or is my phone glitching
 
Driven2lift said:
Cool thing about the 21st century is that none of that matters.

-Give the paramedics a cart with a jack (standard) just roll or pull her onto it while collapsed.

-Give the soldier contacts. Or surgery.

-Use a taser on the big bad guy, floored.

All you need are those most educated and trained to the task. We're a resourceful species
Click to expand...

Yes! You get it!
 
NutraChem said:
So if the job criteria is being able to lift a certain amount and somebody can't meet the criteria and gets the job anyway, that's still "equality" to you?

Could you carry a 350lb guy to safety? Maybe not based on your own description, but are you better suited to accomplish that over someone who can't even lift 150lbs? C'mon man, practice what you preach and be real.

Why do you think there is a criteria in the first place? Nothing is ever 100%, but there is a mathematical field known as statistics which proves some are better suited than others. What if the proper medic who met the criteria called in sick? I guess the 350lb lady is just screwed if Miss. Lightweight shows up, because she will have far lower odds of saving that life. It's unethical to risk a life just to be PC.
Click to expand...

If a male or female cannot meet their respective entry criteria then they shouldn't be allowed in. Simple. Nothing I have said relates to just giving then a job because it's PC, but I strongly disagree that females should be held to the same standards as a male when it comes to physical atrributes.

To place the same physical demands upon a female of that if a male is not fair. How hard is that to understand?
 
Socalmk6gti said:
That's not at all how it works. If you're part of a team, squad, platoon, etc. Your team gets sent in, they don't stop and think about which members are most appropriate for the situation. That would be like female cops only patrolling areas with people small enough for them to handle or situations they could emotionally handle. That just doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

I feel like if some of you had it your way, females wouldnt be able to serve your country because you deem them inadequete.
 
Jiigzz said:
I feel like if some of you had it your way, females wouldnt be able to serve your country because you deem them inadequete.
Click to expand...

I would prefer women not at the battlefield myself, but training as reserves just in case would be a good idea.
 
Jiigzz said:
If a male or female cannot meet their respective entry criteria then they shouldn't be allowed in. Simple. Nothing I have said relates to just giving then a job because it's PC, but I strongly disagree that females should be held to the same standards as a male when it comes to physical atrributes.

To place the same physical demands upon a female of that if a male is not fair. How hard is that to understand?
Click to expand...
As long as the physical requirements for females are sufficient to carry out normal, day-to-day, routine job activities, then it should be fine, but then why make the requirements for males higher if the requirements for females are sufficient to perform the job?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
As long as the physical requirements for females are sufficient to carry out normal, day-to-day, routine job activities, then it should be fine, but then why make the requirements for males higher if the requirements for females are sufficient to perform the job?
Click to expand...

They are scaled.

A male needs to be held to the same standards, but scaled for their personal atrributes. That's what scaling is - placing an equally tough entry requirement on females, but scaled down to match. That's why here in NZ we also have categorys based on age.

Should males not be allowed to have emotional jobs, because females tend to have better carer instincts than a male? Should males be shunned from the service industry because females tend to do better overall at it?
 
Jiigzz said:
They are scaled.

A male needs to be held to the same standards, but scaled for their personal atrributes. That's what scaling is - placing an equally tough entry requirement on females, but scaled down to match. That's why here in NZ we also have categorys based on age.

Should males not be allowed to have emotional jobs, because females tend to have better carer instincts than a male? Should males be shunned from the service industry because females tend to do better overall at it?
Click to expand...
Are those things something you can easily, definitively, and objectively measure? How can you objectively classify and evaluate something like "emotions" for a large number of potential applicants in an efficient way? Some men are better at customer service than some women, and some women are stronger than some men.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Are those things something you can easily, definitively, and objectively measure? How can you objectively classify and evaluate something like "emotions" for a large number of potential applicants in an efficient way? Some men are better at customer service than some women, and some women are stronger than some men.
Click to expand...

So we can only judge them based on the one criteria we are, on the whole, dominant at and expect them to meet 'our' standards?
 
Jiigzz said:
So we can only judge them based on the one criteria we are, on the whole, dominant at and expect them to meet 'our' standards?
Click to expand...
That's not what I'm saying at all...

I'm saying that you can easily determine if anyone, male or female, is physically capable of performing the normal activities required for a given job. Can you say the same thing for emotional capacity? Most jobs don't require much physical activity, so it shouldn't even be an issue most of the time.

More importantly, should a woman have to be able to display a higher emotional capacity than men for the same job? If not, then why should a man have to be stronger than a woman for the same job.

I would propose having the same requirements for men and women for a job, but make them only what is needed to perform the job (surely if a hypothetical job requires lifting 200lbs retails rely, you should be able to lift 200lbs, male or female). Make these the requirements for men and women.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
That's not what I'm saying at all...

I'm saying that you can easily determine if anyone, male or female, is physically capable of performing the normal activities required for a given job. Can you say the same thing for emotional capacity? Most jobs don't require much physical activity, so it shouldn't even be an issue most of the time.

More importantly, should a woman have to be able to display a higher emotional capacity than men for the same job? If not, then why should a man have to be stronger than a woman for the same job.

I would propose having the same requirements for men and women for a job, but make them only what is needed to perform the job (surely if a hypothetical job requires lifting 200lbs retails rely, you should be able to lift 200lbs, male or female). Make these the requirements for men and women.
Click to expand...

This is just going around in circles.
Agree to disgaree
 
Jiigzz said:
This is just going around in circles.
Agree to disgaree
Click to expand...
If you insist, but in reality, shouldn't ALL workers (soldiers, police, firefighters, etc) be physically fit enough to perform the basic duties their job entails? As long as the requirements for females are enough to meet those minimum requirements, I think that's enough. To be clear, I do not support raising the requirements to deter females from being hired.

Last question for you on the topic, if a job consisted almost exclusively of lifting 150lb pipes, shouldn't any applicant, male or female, be able to lift 150lb pipes?
 
Jiigzz said:
Females are not built physically like a male, can you really expect the same criteria applies? In situations where a person is obviously trapped, they will just send someone else in. It's really not that difficult
Click to expand...

what if they pass a woman who can't meet the physical standards, then fail a man for not meeting those same standards-is that equality....on the other hand what if they lower the standards so women CAN pass the test, is that fair to those of us who depend on them?
Jiigzz
 
Driven2lift said:
Cool thing about the 21st century is that none of that matters.

-Give the paramedics a cart with a jack (standard) just roll or pull her onto it while collapsed.

-Give the soldier contacts. Or surgery.

-Use a taser on the big bad guy, floored.

All you need are those most educated and trained to the task. We're a resourceful species
Click to expand...

there is no way you could come up with a contract to cover every eventuality...and if you start singling out gays or trans-well you know....fail
 
muscleupcrohn said:
If you insist, but in reality, shouldn't ALL workers (soldiers, police, firefighters, etc) be physically fit enough to perform the basic duties their job entails? As long as the requirements for females are enough to meet those minimum requirements, I think that's enough. To be clear, I do not support raising the requirements to deter females from being hired.

Last question for you on the topic, if a job consisted almost exclusively of lifting 150lb pipes, shouldn't any applicant, male or female, be able to lift 150lb pipes?
Click to expand...

Bur that is exactly what you are proposing. Moving away from scaled requirements is increasing the demand, especially is based purely on a hypothetical.

How often in policing or ambo work is one required on their own to lift a 200lb person? Not often. Yet you created a hypothetical based solely on lifting, despite the majority of the job not being about manual lifting.

Let's say the army places a new rule: you must be able to shoot accurately with a rifle for 1000 metres, for the chance the head of ISIS poked his head around the corner and you had one chance to take him out? Seems stupid, but that's what hypoteticals are. You're ignoring that, for the most part, these demands are never required on the field based on the tools people now have access to.

On the EQ note, bear in mind that if a test required males to test up to the EQ level of a female, that would be vehemently opposed by males as well. They would demand scaling. Such a test does not exist, but that's exactly what you are proposing these other industry's do: impose huge physical demands on them, yet not create any tests which skew in a females favour. How is that fair?

Again your hypothetical is arbitrary. In NZ, a single person cannot lift something beyond 25kgs on their own (OSH rules), and so the load is distributed amongst 2 where possible. If for some reason a persons job was solely lifting pipes that weighed 150lb, then sure you need to meet that requirement. But hoq often in policing, or ambulance work is your sole job just lifting people without specialised equipment? Hmm
 
thebigt said:
there is no way you could come up with a contract to cover every eventuality...and if you start singling out gays or trans-well you know....fail
Click to expand...

I personally have ethical issue putting women on the battlefield. Men need to take that role and protect women, and only have women in training for reserves only. Also, I wouldnt be mixing men with women on the battlefield and at a time of war, its not a good mix.

I also have ethical issues putting mental illness people on the battlefield as well, in such as this current day that would be trannies. Its also a distraction.
 
Jiigzz said:
Bur that is exactly what you are proposing. Moving away from scaled requirements is increasing the demand, especially is based purely on a hypothetical.

How often in policing or ambo work is one required on their own to lift a 200lb person? Not often. Yet you created a hypothetical based solely on lifting, despite the majority of the job not being about manual lifting.

Let's say the army places a new rule: you must be able to shoot accurately with a rifle for 1000 metres, for the chance the head of ISIS poked his head around the corner and you had one chance to take him out? Seems stupid, but that's what hypoteticals are. You're ignoring that, for the most part, these demands are never required on the field based on the tools people now have access to.

On the EQ note, bear in mind that if a test required males to test up to the EQ level of a female, that would be vehemently opposed by males as well. They would demand scaling. Such a test does not exist, but that's exactly what you are proposing these other industry's do: impose huge physical demands on them, yet not create any tests which skew in a females favour. How is that fair?

Again your hypothetical is arbitrary. In NZ, a single person cannot lift something beyond 25kgs on their own (OSH rules), and so the load is distributed amongst 2 where possible. If for some reason a persons job was solely lifting pipes that weighed 150lb, then sure you need to meet that requirement. But hoq often in policing, or ambulance work is your sole job just lifting people without specialised equipment? Hmm
Click to expand...
I'm saying that the minimum physical requirements should only be enough to be reasonably sure that the potential employee is capable of carrying out ROUTINE physical activities requested for the job. Things that are expected of them regularly. If these minimum requirements for women are sufficient to perform the job, then why bother with scaled up requirements for men at all? That is what I am saying. If a woman only has to run a mile in 12 minutes to pass the requirements to be a firefighter (random number and example), and that is deemed enough to perform the daily activities of the job, why require that men be able to do it in 9? How on earth is that equality?
 
ax1 said:
And democrats only have expanded on that so what difference does it make who started it? Duh.
Click to expand...

lol nice arguement

So the Dems inherit it and then you make them responsible for it and call it a Democrat thing. Funny.

Sorry, the GOP is still responsible for the "War on Drugs" AND the "War on Terror". 110%
 
Gutterpump said:
lol nice arguement

So the Dems inherit it and then you make them responsible for it and call it a Democrat thing. Funny.

Sorry, the GOP is still responsible for the "War on Drugs" AND the "War on Terror". 110%
Click to expand...

They both are 110%. Democrats are drug war mongerers too this is a fact. They all support the same policies.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I'm saying that the minimum physical requirements should only be enough to be reasonably sure that the potential employee is capable of carrying out ROUTINE physical activities requested for the job. Things that are expected of them regularly. If these minimum requirements for women are sufficient to perform the job, then why bother with scaled up requirements for men at all? That is what I am saying. If a woman only has to run a mile in 12 minutes to pass the requirements to be a firefighter (random number and example), and that is deemed enough to perform the daily activities of the job, why require that men be able to do it in 9? How on earth is that equality?
Click to expand...

Right.

The point of the police test here in NZ is to determine you if you are physically fit or not. The run is 2.4km in 10 minutes for males between a certain age. On the day to day, no cop is required to run that distance in that time to catch a criminal, it's a screening test for anaerobic and aerobic capacity. You then go down to police college where all people are subject to the same training criteria as each other, things more applicable to daily routine. Cant complete that? You dont make the cut.
 
Invalid Link Removed

I just wanna take this moment to thank our Russian friends for all they've done for the world. Let's hope we never have to go to war with them, ever.
 
ax1 said:
I personally have ethical issue putting women on the battlefield. Men need to take that role and protect women, and only have women in training for reserves only. Also, I wouldnt be mixing men with women on the battlefield and at a time of war, its not a good mix.

I also have ethical issues putting mental illness people on the battlefield as well, in such as this current day that would be trannies. Its also a distraction.
Click to expand...

I have a good group of females friends in the armed forces and police (hence why im so all for it) and they are amazing at their respective jobs. If they want to serve, I have no qualms with that personally.
 
Jiigzz said:
I have a good group of females friends in the armed forces and police (hence why im so all for it) and they are amazing at their respective jobs. If they want to serve, I have no qualms with that personally.
Click to expand...
Same here. I've met women that are more than capable, and some men (even ones who were/are soldiers/cops/firefighters) who probably shouldn't have been.
 
ax1 said:
I personally have ethical issue putting women on the battlefield. Men need to take that role and protect women, and only have women in training for reserves only. Also, I wouldnt be mixing men with women on the battlefield and at a time of war, its not a good mix.

I also have ethical issues putting mental illness people on the battlefield as well, in such as this current day that would be trannies. Its also a distraction.
Click to expand...

lol...so much has changed since my time in the military. there were no women onboard ships and we used to have watches from taps to reveille where we would go around the berthing compartments checking for fire or anything out of the ordinary, but actually we were told to beonthe lookout for guys in a rack together[we used to call itthe gay watch[can't use the word we used anymore, it isn't politically correct]..gays were court martialed out of the military.

now with women and openly gay men and women onboard ships it seems that onboard ship life would be a soap opera full of distractions, lol.
 
Gutterpump said:
Invalid Link Removed

I just wanna take this moment to thank our Russian friends for all they've done for the world. Let's hope we never have to go to war with them, ever.
Click to expand...

Well saying how the USA had more victories then the rest, had lowest amount of soldiers killed, killed the most solidiers, and destroyed the most military vehicles, i think we will be fine; if its not nuclear. In nuclear war no one wins
 
Jiigzz said:
I have a good group of females friends in the armed forces and police (hence why im so all for it) and they are amazing at their respective jobs. If they want to serve, I have no qualms with that personally.
Click to expand...

as long as they pass the requirements and exceptions aren't made, go for it...but with the marines and special forces being open to females if enough females can't pass and they lower standards so they can pass, I have real issues with that...I am for equality but I am totally 1000% against political correctness agendas!!!!!!!
 
rtmilburn said:
Well saying how the USA had more victories then the rest, had lowest amount of soldiers killed, killed the most solidiers, and destroyed the most military vehicles, i think we will be fine; if its not nuclear. In nuclear war no one wins
Click to expand...

Not to mention we also supplied most of the supplies
 
thebigt said:
as long as they pass the requirements and exceptions aren't made, go for it...but with the marines and special forces being open to females if enough females can't pass and they lower standards so they can pass, I have real issues with that...I am for equality but I am totally 1000% against political correctness agendas!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I agree.

Where my difference lies is in the word scaled. We even scale things for males based on age.

Scaled is not making something easier, it is setting a standard appropriate to the ddemographic you are testing. Yes, going from male to female is scaled easier in the sense that a male should be able to easily pass their test, whereas for a female that test is suitably hard.

What matters is if they can pass the requirements needed for day to day activity. If they cannot pack march, if they cannot stand at attention for long periods if they cannot shoot at something, if they cannot operate under stress etc then they should not be allowed in. Simple. But testing is an arbitrary measure of fitness and strength meant to weed out the trained from the untrained before they invest too much more materials on them.

Whether male or female, if you cannot get through basic, you have no place being there
 
Gutterpump said:
Invalid Link Removed

I just wanna take this moment to thank our Russian friends for all they've done for the world. Let's hope we never have to go to war with them, ever.
Click to expand...

Another thing wrong with that is there were way way way more Japanese soldiers than any other
 
Jiigzz said:
I agree.

Where my difference lies is in the word scaled. We even scale things for males based on age.

Scaled is not making something easier, it is setting a standard appropriate to the ddemographic you are testing. Yes, going from male to female is scaled easier in the sense that a male should be able to easily pass their test, whereas for a female that test is suitably hard.

What matters is if they can pass the requirements needed for day to day activity. If they cannot pack march, if they cannot stand at attention for long periods if they cannot shoot at something, if they cannot operate under stress etc then they should not be allowed in. Simple. But testing is an arbitrary measure of fitness and strength meant to weed out the trained from the untrained before they invest too much more materials on them.

Whether male or female, if you cannot get through basic, you have no place being there
Click to expand...

I agree 100%...my issue is that since Obama and liberals are pushing so hard for women to be in every section of the military, I worry that if only a very few women are able to be seals or rangers that they will start making exceptions or lowering standards....on the battlefield you depend on each other and having women who can't hold their own is going to disrupt the whole continuity of the team....a team is only as strong as the weakest member.
 
thebigt said:
there is no way you could come up with a contract to cover every eventuality...and if you start singling out gays or trans-well you know....fail
Click to expand...


What sets us apart and advanced us to the top is brains, not brawn.

The earlier "cops need to be bigger/stronger than criminals" example is absurd.

Bodybuilders would dominate the job market

All of these profession examples are amply geared for the task. Of course they can't be prepared for any and everything...
But then no one can.

And I'd feel safer with the most intelligent & trained servicemen/women than I would with anyone otherwise. Military included for me
 
Gutterpump said:
Invalid Link Removed

I just wanna take this moment to thank our Russian friends for all they've done for the world. Let's hope we never have to go to war with them, ever.
Click to expand...

Which country is "we" exactly? Also, anybody that thinks France is chicken knows absolutely nothing about military history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top