• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Woman to become NY firefighter despite failing crucial fitness test

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?

Being dragged out of a burning building through whatever is burning in the path? Ummm..yes. Who the **** wants to be dragged through fire?
 
I don't know, I simply asked a hypothetical and want to gauge the person's degree of principles.

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?


If there is a shortage of firefighters, I can understand bringing in people who don't meet the full qualifications. In many situations some help is better than no help at all. But if there is no shortage of those who can pass the physical requirements who are ready and willing, why would we lower the standards or let in those who can't pass them?
 
Being dragged out of a burning building through whatever is burning in the path? Ummm..yes. Who the **** wants to be dragged through fire?

People who don't want to lay still and be consumed by even more 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?


And who said there aren't enough male applicants.? Liberals are making stuff up again.
 
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?

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.
 
It defeats the whole ****ing point of saving me from fire if you drag me through fire. lol.

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?
 
Not necessarily - I'd much rather deal with burns and head injuries than be dead.

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?
 
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.

I bet the city will be liable to whoever is hurt or injured because of her.
 
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?

:shrug: you would if there was a shortage of fire fighters capable of doing the job effectively. If so, then you are increasing your FD's performance. If not, then you are decreasing your FD's performance.


So the question becomes (and thus far no one has answered) whether or not there is such a shortage. Given that they are still working through the recruits they got last time they offered intro exams in 2012, I'm going to bet that there is not.
 
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?

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?
 
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?

I would rather take my chances than rely on a force that has to drag me through fire. Hell, if I'm stuck chances are someone only capable of dragging me by my ankles isn't going to save me anyway.
 
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.

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.
 
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?


But there are enough male participants, who are more qualified (did not require lowering of standards) who want to do this.

Lefty politics are preventing it.
 
I don't know, I simply asked a hypothetical and want to gauge the person's degree of principles.

so you are trying to create a false narrative in order to try and proven his statement incorrect?
go figure.

please provide evidence that there are not enough men in NY wanting to be firefighters first.
 
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?

Heres another experiment-

You are injured and unconscious in a burning building with thick smoke fumes, the fire crew has had to search for you for 20 minutes in full gear hauling hoses with them. They are at the point of physical exhaustion and theres only one chance to get you out, which rescuer do you choose?

The stronger rescuer who meets the previous standards and is therefore more able to keep you, himself, and others safe...
or the under qualified candidate with less strength and endurance?

Who would you pick for your female family members?
 
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?

Thats not happening, although firefighting has always been a job where non-college educated people can make a living, and quite competitive-its likely to remain a male oriented field.
 
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.

Frankly yes, according to the left-symbolism over substance even if its more dangerous.

One of the lefts central tenets is that everyone is equal (despite that being absurd on its face), so to admit that men do some jobs better, or that all people aren't the same guts their own ideology.

If you are wondering if they would hold this view to the detriment of public safety we already know the answer-yes.
 
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?

stacked hypotheticals are not arguments. they are indeed logical fallacies.
this women should have never been made a firefighter. she does not have the physical endurance or strength to do the job 100%.

the city and people like you are putting other people at risk for her not being able to do 100% of the job when required.
the city will pay the cost when this women costs someone their lives.

I figure she will quit before then. she will never be respected and never get recognized as a real firefighter but someone that was able to cheat the system.
 
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.

This is "interesting".

I live in the most "progressive" city in the most "progressive" country in North America. The city council in its wisdom for instance has created $65 million in bicycle lanes to combat global warming, and you can only ride a bike five months of the year. We have a "no nuke" by law preventing any form of nuclear technology within city limits so the Russians can't bomb us, and city hall itself is designated "cultural linear" meaning the staff, in numbers should reflect the percentages of cultures in the city, European, Asian, South Asian/Indian, Filipino, and First Nations.

The members of this council have been the vanguard of gay and lesbian rights, and refuses to accept the federal government's mandate on marijuana growing and dispensing.

We have a Chinese Canadian chief of Police, and the VPD has the highest percentage of women of any force in Canada. Being arrested by a petite Asian woman can be fun....I am told.

However, there is an outright ban on women in the fire department. It has been tried and is deemed to be unsafe. Women gave up applying several years ago

Like I say, interesting.
 
This would be like giving an elderly person a driver's license even though they failed the sight test because there is a social agenda saying that we shouldn't discriminate against old people. Not only will these types of decisions put innocent people at risk, those individuals being "passed" when they shouldn't be are the ones most likely to suffer grievous injury or death as a result of that decision. If this woman or one of her coworkers dies as a result of her being told to do a job she was known to be incapable of doing, those lawsuits will be costly.
 
I bet the city will be liable to whoever is hurt or injured because of her.

I thought the same thing but then i realized - No, the liberal judge will say the injured person lacks "standing". Like they did with all the injured soldiers sent into battle by a president they argued was ineligible.
 
Back
Top Bottom