Man Resists a Taser

Off Topic
161

[quote]SouthernGypsy wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
SouthernGypsy wrote:
I love it when a woman is comfortable in her own skin enough to not play a tough front and let me open the door for her.

Why should women care what you love?

I guess for the same reason that anyone should care what a self-proclaimed HR expert thinks.

Douche…[/quote]

Oh, so you have women emailing asking you what they should do?

The question was meant to help you explore your attitudes about women, but I see you chose to be a prick.

162

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
The question was meant to help you explore your attitudes about women, but I see you chose to be a prick.[/quote]

So you think you need to teach me by asking me questions so I can come up to your level? Get off your self-righteous thrown…prick.

163

[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Out of curiosity, how many here HAVE gotten overtly bad reactions from women when opening doors for them, and things of that nature?

Me: Never.[/quote]

While the vast majority of people I have held doors open for have been pleasant, a few women have been rude in the way people full of themselves are rude to wait staff; trying to communicate they are better. This quickly told me that I want nothing to do with them.

164

[quote]SouthernGypsy wrote:
I love it when a woman is comfortable in her own skin enough to not play a tough front and let me open the door for her.[/quote]

I made a suit out of womens skin. Very comfortable.

165

I assume this is you doing some rope training.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I made a suit out of womens skin. Very comfortable.[/quote]

166

[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
I assume this is you doing some rope training.

Zap Branigan wrote:

I made a suit out of womens skin. Very comfortable.

[/quote]

Damn, how did you get my picture?

167

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Bob760 wrote:
buckeye girl wrote:
oh god. here we go.

I’m pretty sure we are not “allowed” to hit anyone, regardless of sex.

Men and women still are not equal in society. White male privilege continues to exists, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that men have it easy.

And, I’m pretty sure I’ve said this before, but…I can open my own fucking door.

Alright then answer this, why then do women have lower requitements and lower standards than males do for certain jobs such as fire/rescue and law enforcement and their requirements are roughly 1/2 to 3/4 of the male standards so shouldn’t then get 1/2 to 3/4 the normal pay? I think its silly to think that one could have lower requirements and still argue that they weren’t getting paid enough when the males have higher standards but are receiving the same pay as someone who had lower standards.

anyone who disagrees that females should have to make the same HIGH requirements as males for positions like this are worthless human beings. I already hate how soccer mom organziations are trying to sugarcoat military traning. Having weak people in the polive and fire dept is going to make our cities worse places to live.
[/quote]

How old are you? I’m not picking on you for your age, but rather your apparent lack of life experience before throwing out regurgitations like these. Go out and serve with women in the public sector before you say shit like this, honestly. That goes for everyone. Some of the best soldiers I served with in the Army were women who couldn’t perform as well as men on a physical basis. This doesn’t lessen their worth on the job. Sure, there are some situations that require more strength than others when the shit hits the fan. But you know what, sometimes the big, strong macho man couldn’t sack up and get it done either. There are reasons why combat, fire, rescue, etc are formed into units. They recognize that it takes multiple people with different skill sets to be most functional.

So, do yourself a favor and stop listening so much to your Lazy-Boy entrenched, bitter, beer-soaked old man in his stained wife-beater and experience the world a bit more with open eyes and ears.

DB

168

[quote]SouthernGypsy wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
The question was meant to help you explore your attitudes about women, but I see you chose to be a prick.

So you think you need to teach me by asking me questions so I can come up to your level? Get off your self-righteous thrown…prick.[/quote]

no, I’m not trying to bring you up to my level. I was hoping that you would do some self-exploration, but I doubt that just thinking about gender power differences is going to anything other than make you a more thoughtful person. I understand how you would prefer not thinking, though.

169

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
no, I’m not trying to bring you up to my level. I was hoping that you would do some self-exploration, but I doubt that just thinking about gender power differences is going to anything other than make you a more thoughtful person. I understand how you would prefer not thinking, though.[/quote]

I hate to burst you bubble, but I don’t need self-exploration to know how to treat a woman. My dad taught me all that I need to know when I was growing up.

Perhaps if you spent a little less time thinking, and a little more time actually interacting with women, you’d get a clue that they are more than some pop-psychology experiment.

170

[quote]SouthernGypsy wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
no, I’m not trying to bring you up to my level. I was hoping that you would do some self-exploration, but I doubt that just thinking about gender power differences is going to anything other than make you a more thoughtful person. I understand how you would prefer not thinking, though.

I hate to burst you bubble, but I don’t need self-exploration to know how to treat a woman. My dad taught me all that I need to know when I was growing up.
[/quote]

And you don’t see how “knowing how to treat a woman” based on conservative patriarchal values presents a problem? When your father learned from his father, were women allowed to work outside the home yet?

[quote]
Perhaps if you spent a little less time thinking, and a little more time actually interacting with women, you’d get a clue that they are more than some pop-psychology experiment.[/quote]

Or maybe the amount of thinking that I do is what makes my marriage so wonderful. Also, what makes you think that I reduce women to “some pop-psychology experiment?” All I suggested is that you explore your attitudes towards them; I can’t see the connection between these. I’m talking about looking at possible negative views of women, but your interpretation suggests objectifying women, and reducing them down to their instrumental value (a pop-psychology experiment). What made you interpret what I said this way?

And I find your negative attitudes toward thinking interesting. Do you feel that there’s no need to question what others(your father in particular) have taught you?

171

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
And I find your negative attitudes toward thinking interesting. Do you feel that there’s no need to question what others(your father in particular) have taught you?[/quote]

I think it your approach, and not thinking in general, that he finds off-putting.

172

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
And I find your negative attitudes toward thinking interesting. Do you feel that there’s no need to question what others(your father in particular) have taught you?

I think it your approach, and not thinking in general, that he finds off-putting.[/quote]

Take a look at the language he’s using. Diction is just as revealing as content, IMO.

173

Nobody is better than anyone and everyone is the best at everything.

-S. Skinner

174

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
And I find your negative attitudes toward thinking interesting. Do you feel that there’s no need to question what others(your father in particular) have taught you?

I think it your approach, and not thinking in general, that he finds off-putting.[/quote]

nephorm is correct here. Because I have a different opinion on the situation, you think I haven’t thought about it, and all I need to do is think about it to come to your correct opinion.

Your opinion is not correct or incorrect. It is just your opinion, just like mine.

Edit: And I’m tired of going in circles on this issue. I’m glad the women in my life can appreciate things done for them, though they can do it themselves, without turning into a feminist rhetoric issue.

175

[quote]SouthernGypsy wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
And I find your negative attitudes toward thinking interesting. Do you feel that there’s no need to question what others(your father in particular) have taught you?

I think it your approach, and not thinking in general, that he finds off-putting.

nephorm is correct here. Because I have a different opinion on the situation, you think I haven’t thought about it, and all I need to do is think about it to come to your correct opinion.
.[/quote]

I can’t stand that kind of attitude. Hey, guess what, this kind of attitude is what makes interacting with social science majors a major PITA for me. I like thinking about this stuff and reading about it, I just don’t like the attitude the majority of them seem to display. I know a crap-ton about biochemistry, but I don’t run around with that kind of attitude when talking to other people.

Of course the difference is there’s less room for argumentation in many of the basic areas of biochemistry (not cutting edge current research stuff), so I AM right most of the time. Whereas soft sciences like sociology have much more area for disagreement with fundamental theory and there is a much wider range of opinion by terminal degrees on various theories. Even those that have been established for some time have detractors on a wider scale. As such, the field SHOULD warrant a less ‘high and mighty’ approach to discussions.

Related to our brief interaction Alexsandr, please post some specific examples instead of telling me my opinion is worthless. If they look reasonable to me, I am fully prepared to amend my position.

176

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
SouthernGypsy wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
And I find your negative attitudes toward thinking interesting. Do you feel that there’s no need to question what others(your father in particular) have taught you?

I think it your approach, and not thinking in general, that he finds off-putting.

nephorm is correct here. Because I have a different opinion on the situation, you think I haven’t thought about it, and all I need to do is think about it to come to your correct opinion.
.

I can’t stand that kind of attitude. Hey, guess what, this kind of attitude is what makes interacting with social science majors a major PITA for me. I like thinking about this stuff and reading about it, I just don’t like the attitude the majority of them seem to display. I know a crap-ton about biochemistry, but I don’t run around with that kind of attitude when talking to other people.

Of course the difference is there’s less room for argumentation in many of the basic areas of biochemistry (not cutting edge current research stuff), so I AM right most of the time. Whereas soft sciences like sociology have much more area for disagreement with fundamental theory and there is a much wider range of opinion by terminal degrees on various theories. Even those that have been established for some time have detractors on a wider scale. As such, the field SHOULD warrant a less ‘high and mighty’ approach to discussions.

Related to our brief interaction Alexsandr, please post some specific examples instead of telling me my opinion is worthless. If they look reasonable to me, I am fully prepared to amend my position. [/quote]

I’m not quite as familiar with US case law, but the same principle does apply. You cannot use a selection tool- in this case meeting a requirement- that adversely affects female applicants without demonstrating that the standard used represents a bona fide occupational requirement. If women who do not meet this requirement can perform the job satisfactorily, it cannot be used in selection.

The problem is, you seem to have seen this as an area where opinion matters; I don’t. The law is what it is, and with very good reason.

But you weren’t just presenting you opinion, you said:

[quote]
anyone who disagrees that females should have to make the same HIGH requirements as males for positions like this are worthless human beings. [/quote]

And

[quote]

I’m sorry, but with all due respect you are out of your ever-loving mind. [/quote]

But then it’s MY attitude you have a problem with? You took a very strong position and insulted anyone that may disagree with you. This might be forgivable if you weren’t wrong. I’m guessing you have no background in selection, or any other aspect of human resource management, yet you feel entitled to say nonsense like this.

177

It’s all the educational systems fault for all this injustice. Who in hell decided to teach women to think anyway.

About the education crap stop (in the name of love), because not to long ago men usually never made it out of high school (some not even into high school), while women were the majority of graduates from college and men were expected to work in the fields while the women taught the children and made supper.

I like how women have always complained, prohibition (that went well), voting (look at the dumbass that was voted in after you were able to vote), education (so you can become house wifes again), jobs (so you can just have lower level men do your work), having someone hold a door for you (be rude) and helps you sit down (ungracious), and interaction (sexual harassment). Yet, men just get shit done and try to make everyone happy, then women just make us flip back to how it was after a couple of scores or we have to bust our balls because whatever they wanted was just ridiculous.

I say we have a revolution, everyone go home and just take off your belt and beat the shit out of them and tell them if they want to rule shit they gotta man up because you’re the provider and you run shit. Then you can arch your back and flex like a gorilla while you say “King Kong ain’t got shit on me.”

178

Please change the name of this thread from “man resists a taser” to “man resists a taser and people fight over femenine rights”

179

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
You cannot use a selection tool- in this case meeting a requirement- that adversely affects female applicants without demonstrating that the standard used represents a bona fide occupational requirement. If women who do not meet this requirement can perform the job satisfactorily, it cannot be used in selection.
[/quote]

If were the case then there is no reason that the standard should be applied to males either.

The only way you could justify requiring males to meet the standards but not females would be to argue that women who fail to meet the requirement can still perform the job satisfactorily, whereas men who fail to meet the standard cannot.

180

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
You cannot use a selection tool- in this case meeting a requirement- that adversely affects female applicants without demonstrating that the standard used represents a bona fide occupational requirement. If women who do not meet this requirement can perform the job satisfactorily, it cannot be used in selection.

If were the case then there is no reason that the standard should be applied to males either.

The only way you could justify requiring males to meet the standards but not females would be to argue that women who fail to meet the requirement can still perform the job satisfactorily, whereas men who fail to meet the standard cannot.

[/quote]

Regular Gonzalez is right. The widely used Physical Aptitude Test for fire-fighters, the C-PAT is the same for men and women.