Another stupid example of "equality"

Bandit wrote:

He made no mention of physical strength until he got called on it.

As usual you're making things up just as fast as you can pull them out of your azz with both fists.

From Annoyed's first post that started this topic...

"It's not as of police will ever need physical strength in the course of their jobs to subdue a suspect, for example."

Physical strength was the whole point of his post, and the whole topic of this thread. You need to learn the difference between the screwball fantasies your create in your head and reality. You are trying to recast his clearly stated opinions about women not being physically strong enough for these jobs, as if he's claiming they aren't smart enough. That is a complete lie on your part... or else you're just completely delusional.

PappyLee wrote:

I agree with Bandit. Republicans are racist, sexist bigots.

It's Democrats that tend to be racist, sexist and bigots.

PappyLee wrote:

The war on women has been raged for years by the republican party. That is why they do not vote for them.

This is no war on women. You can't provide one example of it. This whole thread is an example of the exact opposite, democrats treating women like they are inferior and unable to compete with men so giving them an easier in. Not only is that not fair to men, it isn't fair to the women who got in on equal merits with the men.

Republicans don't vote for women? There are 4 Rep women in the Senate and 19 in the house. Not to mention the Reps have put one women on the presidential ticket... the exact same number of women the Dems have put on the ticket.

PappyLee wrote:

People like Eber do not want to give them a fair shake.

No, that's exactly what I want to give everybody. Whether they be male, female, black, white, short, tall, fat, skinny, Christian, Hindu or whatever.


I can provide at least one very blatant sexist policy of our government... but it's sexist against men not women. The Selective Service Registration.

eber322 wrote:

Bandit wrote:

The DOJ stated the physical fitness test had NOTHING to do with being able to perform the duties required of the job. PERIOD.

Bull flop. Physical fitness has nothing to do with being able to perform the duties? Bull. Not true and that was never said by anyone other than you.

Pay attention Eber. I said TEST. The DOJ said TEST. You even quoted me and it says TEST.

See your mistake yet?

eber322 wrote:

As usual you're making things up just as fast as you can pull them out of your azz with both fists.

From Annoyed's first post that started this topic...

"It's not as of police will ever need physical strength in the course of their jobs to subdue a suspect, for example."

Physical strength was the whole point of his post, and the whole topic of this thread. You need to learn the difference between the screwball fantasies your create in your head and reality. You are trying to recast his clearly stated opinions about women not being physically strong enough for these jobs, as if he's claiming they aren't smart enough. That is a complete lie on your part... or else you're just completely delusional.

Again Eber, pay attention. What started this thread was this statement:

Annoyed wrote:

I have no problems with women serving as police, fire, military, etc. as long as they are in fact equal to the men applying for the same positions.

Problem is that in general, they are not. Sure, there are some women who are easily the equals or superiors of males, but these are the exception to the rule, not the rule.

That is a sexist statement, PERIOD. Are women smart enough? According to his opinion, generally speaking, no. He clearly stated that in general, women are not equal or superior to males applying for the same position.

I will say this. Smith and Wesson is a great equalizer.

Bandit wrote:

Again Eber, pay attention. What started this thread was this statement:

Annoyed wrote:

I have no problems with women serving as police, fire, military, etc. as long as they are in fact equal to the men applying for the same positions.

Problem is that in general, they are not. Sure, there are some women who are easily the equals or superiors of males, but these are the exception to the rule, not the rule.

That is a sexist statement, PERIOD. Are women smart enough? According to his opinion, generally speaking, no. He clearly stated that in general, women are not equal or superior to males applying for the same position.

You really have a reading comprehension problem. Yes in those first two sentences he said women in general are not equal to me.... HOWEVER, and this is where your lack of reading comprehension comes in, he did not say in what way they are not equal in those first two sentences. You seem to like to fantasize what he meant and then pull that  fantasy out of your azz as if it's fact. But the real fact is that he did say in what way they are not equal in the third through fifth sentences!

Annoyed wrote:

Now it seems that the LSoS's DOJ is going to sue PA for entrance exam physicals that have more difficulty passing than men do because they are... wait for it.... Women!

Either the candidates are equal or they're not. If someone male or female cannot past the tests, they should not be allowed to to continue their application, period. No exceptions, no BS. If someone male or female passes, congratulations, now get to class!

It's not as of police will ever need physical strength in the course of their jobs to subdue a suspect, for example.

So there you go, if you actually read what he said instead of hallucinating what you think he meant, you'll see he is talking about physical requirements... which is not only the topic of this thread, but the topic of the article he posted about.

And there is nothing sexist about that statement since it is true.

Bandit wrote:

Pay attention Eber. I said TEST. The DOJ said TEST. You even quoted me and it says TEST.

As I figured, you can't cite a source since you just hallucinated it in your own mind.

Annoyed wrote:

Men ARE on the average, stronger than women. And it is in areas where physical strength comes into play where women cannot meet the standards. Those standards should never be relaxed to favor any group of people. Period.

That's all I'll say on it. I'm done.

Leaving so soon? I'm not surprised. You have nothing to back up your statements. You also seem confused as to what I disagree and agree with. Try this:

Men ARE on average, stronger than women.

Factual. It cannot be debated on any level.

And it is in areas where physical strength comes into play where women cannot meet the standards.

Wrong. The only physical strength a women needs, is that required to do the job. "The standards" here had nothing to do with the job.

PA police physical requirements....

"Would-be cadets must complete a 300-meter run in 77 seconds, a 1.5-mile run in 17 minutes, 48 seconds, and an agility run in 23.5 seconds. They also must jump at least 14 vertical inches and perform at least 13 push-ups (no time frame).

Falling short of any requirement is an automatic disqualifier.

Federal prosecutors said 98 percent of male applicants who took the test between 2009 and 2012 passed, compared with 72 percent of female applicants."

Obviously this is general physical test that makes sure candidates can meet minimum physical strength and conditioning requirements. The kind of conditioning that DIRECTLY applies to police officers. It's also obviously pretty easy if nearly 100% of men and nearly 75% of women can pass it. And it's also pretty obvious that women have nothing to bytch about with a pass rate that high.

eber322 wrote:

PA police physical requirements....

"Would-be cadets must complete a 300-meter run in 77 seconds, a 1.5-mile run in 17 minutes, 48 seconds, and an agility run in 23.5 seconds. They also must jump at least 14 vertical inches and perform at least 13 push-ups (no time frame).

Falling short of any requirement is an automatic disqualifier.

Federal prosecutors said 98 percent of male applicants who took the test between 2009 and 2012 passed, compared with 72 percent of female applicants."

Obviously this is general physical test that makes sure candidates can meet minimum physical strength and conditioning requirements. The kind of conditioning that DIRECTLY applies to police officers. It's also obviously pretty easy if nearly 100% of men and nearly 75% of women can pass it. And it's also pretty obvious that women have nothing to bytch about with a pass rate that high.

My son just took the WV state police test physical test. 27 push ups in one minute male or female. 1.5 mile run in 15 minutes. 60 set ups in 1 minute. They are strict He failed the push ups by one just because he did touch the instructors hand. PA cops are wimps.

eber322 wrote:

And it's also pretty obvious that women have nothing to bytch about with a pass rate that high.

Women of that political stripe will always have something to bytch about because they are not trying to obtain equality, they are trying to obtain a superior standing.

Back in the 80's, I think it was, PA's state insurance regulators tried to decree that the automobile insurance rates for men & women be equal. Now, of course, being greedy bastages, the insurers didn't lower the men's rate to match those of women, they raised the womens' rates to match those of men.

Guess who was first in line to squeal like a stuck pig? The National Organization for Women.

Equality, my @$$.

Had anybody bothered to follow the link provided by Annoyed, and read the ENTIRE article, you would have read this:

Quote :

Though police work often requires physical strength and stamina, the DOJ argues that the agency over-emphasizes the test’s usefulness on the job.

“Defendants’ use of both the 2003 and the 2009 PFT is not job-related for the entry-level trooper position, [and] is not consistent with business necessity,” the complaint reads.

Of course the test isn't useful "on the job". The test is useful to screen candidates to make sure they are a qualified for the job.

Bandit wrote:

Had anybody bothered to follow the link provided by Annoyed, and read the ENTIRE article, you would have read this:

Quote :

Though police work often requires physical strength and stamina, the DOJ argues that the agency over-emphasizes the test’s usefulness on the job.

“Defendants’ use of both the 2003 and the 2009 PFT is not job-related for the entry-level trooper position, [and] is not consistent with business necessity,” the complaint reads.

All I know is this. Physical fitness test at first is to weed out the undesirables. I don't care what the government says. Police officer training or military basic or boot camp is to weed out the weak and the useless. They stress you to see if you can take it. Believe me if you cannot make in the military you are going to have a hard time in the corporate world.

Now does this process weed out everyone? No. But the vast majority it does. We use to have a saying in the Navy if you cannot make here you are not going to make it in the real world. That was so true. In the military you can get up and take a leak when you want. The assembly line you cannot just get up and go take a leak.

But I was sick SOB I loved boot camp.

Here we go female Rangers.
http://www.stripes.com/news/army/milestone-for-women-army-could-admit-female-soldiers-to-ranger-school-next-spring-1.302915
As of March, 14 women had attempted the course since the fall of 2012, but none had passed, according to The Washington Post. Of course this is like women trying to play pro football. So are they going to lower the standards?

Of course they will. Our military has been transformed into a vast social experiment, rather than its proper role as the defenders of our nation and way of life.

Israel has women on the front line. They have one of the toughest militaries in the world.

PappyLee wrote:

Israel has women on the front line. They have one of the toughest militaries in the world.

And in Europe McDonalds restaurants serve beer... what's your point?

And over there the good stuff isn't imported

By the way when any war gets tough we pretty much accept anyone with a heart beat. We call them cannon fodder.