Jump to content

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of New Haven Firefighters


Recommended Posts

I have no idea.

 

It's interesting that you focus on women and don't mentioned all those big-bellied MALE cops and, in may cases, firefighters that far outnumber the women.

 

But, not surprising.

Because a womens job is to stay at home, barefoot, pregnant, cooking and cleaning. Duh....

 

Go get me a beer woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have no idea.

 

It's interesting that you focus on women and don't mentioned all those big-bellied MALE cops and, in may cases, firefighters that far outnumber the women.

 

But, not surprising.

Way to showcase your typical defensiveness.

 

I'll take "I have no idea" as a "there's no way."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way to showcase your typical defensiveness.

 

I'll take "I have no idea" as a "there's no way."

uh, no, since I have not been fighting fires for some time I cannot say whether I can still do all those things. I would say probably not, but you never know until you try.

 

I know for the 8 years that I did, I remained in that shape. I have citations for saving two of my fellows...both over 6 feet tall...

 

I doubt there are many people on this board who are in the same shape - better OR worse - than they were 15 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Lowering standards is the ultimate vote-getter. It accomplishes a lot...for the candidates.

 

 

I agree too.

 

Just as in getting votes, it (lower SOCIAL standards) is "good business":

 

I would also like to add that lowering all kinds of SOCIAL standards is good for buisness and for that business to make money. Just look at at what the entertainment and recreation buisness pumps out there. "Be free to do whatever one wants and spend whatever one needs to spend to make one's rest and relaxation paramount." IE: What ever makes you happy.

 

The lowest common denominator is what drives everything. Whoever is the first to defect from the norm/standard and lower things can stand to make a ton of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uh, no, since I have not been fighting fires for some time I cannot say whether I can still do all those things. I would say probably not, but you never know until you try.

 

I know for the 8 years that I did, I remained in that shape. I have citations for saving two of my fellows...both over 6 feet tall...

 

I doubt there are many people on this board who are in the same shape - better OR worse - than they were 15 years ago.

 

Why did you give it up or leave for something else?

 

Darin has a very valid point about doing such a job/occupation for the whole length of one's career. I wonder what drives the "big bellied" guys to keep at certain jobs for say 20,30, or more years... :o:lol:

 

Myself, I am in most likely worse shape than I was at 26... Yet, I probably can do the same if not better manual labor than I did when I was younger... I don't know what it is, it must be the shear years of doing it. Maybe I will slow down in my 50's when age becomes a bigger factor. Or either it must be the calluses on my hands and the WILL to do anything asked of me physically. I am getting a little more skittish when working from high heights.

 

??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think you could have stayed in that kind of condition for an entire career? I don't mean that accusingly, but stuff like that is a total lifestyle change and I think most people would have a hard time maintaining that level.

 

There was a woman Army Major who wanted to prove that women could make it in Special Forces back when I was in. She prepared for a long time and barely made the minimum requirement (men's minimum - there was no female requirement at the time). She wrote a lengthy article about why SF should remain a "men's only club". She underwent a complete attitude adjustment/eye opening lifestyle change in a matter of weeks.

 

To me, both sides are right but they are arguing two different things. You're absolutely right that there is just discrimination, it is or it isn't.

 

The other side to me is also right, there are subsets of "discrimination" and they can be slightly different. "Reverse discrimination" makes sense to me and differs from the overall banner of discrimination like gender discrimination does and age discrimination does. All of them are forms of discrimination but not all discrimination falls under one or more of those forms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain reverse discrimination to me?

 

I've never understood that phrase. It's discrimination either way.

 

 

There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination". That is one that pisses me off to no end. It implies that only white people can discriminate. We actually had a discussion about it at one of those military social actions exercises and you wouldn't believe how many people subscribe to the concept.

 

There actually is such a thing.

 

Discrimination is not typically defined as just anyone discriminating against anyone, it is a majority group discriminating against a minority group. Reverse discrimination is when the minority group discriminates against the majority group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, both sides are right but they are arguing two different things. You're absolutely right that there is just discrimination, it is or it isn't.

 

The other side to me is also right, there are subsets of "discrimination" and they can be slightly different. "Reverse discrimination" makes sense to me and differs from the overall banner of discrimination like gender discrimination does and age discrimination does. All of them are forms of discrimination but not all discrimination falls under one or more of those forms.

 

I'm going to sue the NBA for height discrimination

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, both sides are right but they are arguing two different things. You're absolutely right that there is just discrimination, it is or it isn't.

 

The other side to me is also right, there are subsets of "discrimination" and they can be slightly different. "Reverse discrimination" makes sense to me and differs from the overall banner of discrimination like gender discrimination does and age discrimination does. All of them are forms of discrimination but not all discrimination falls under one or more of those forms.

 

So explain what the term "reverse discrimination" means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, both sides are right but they are arguing two different things. You're absolutely right that there is just discrimination, it is or it isn't.

 

The other side to me is also right, there are subsets of "discrimination" and they can be slightly different. "Reverse discrimination" makes sense to me and differs from the overall banner of discrimination like gender discrimination does and age discrimination does. All of them are forms of discrimination but not all discrimination falls under one or more of those forms.

 

 

:devil:

 

Do you work for the Department of Redundancy Department?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...