Religion in the Workplace.

[Sand]

It would be hard to explain without sounding insane, so I won't. Suffice to say I know God exists and he's an ass.

[Xard]

Argumenting is fun

 

I see what your take on it is, I just disagree 

 

You have lost however. As you plagiarized my post. I will be reporting you to the Dean immediately.

 

Noes!!!!

 

edit: from philosophical point of view God has to exist, he is the first mover.

 

This is where we get: "Who created god?"

 

Then: "No one, he created himself from nothing" or "he always was"

 

"Can't something else, ie Bing Bang, do that then"

 

"no"

 

"um....ok....."

 

and you lose me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey, I just quoted one of the old greek guys

 

Besides, first mover = God

 

Thus whatever first mover is that is God. First mover might've actually be God that created god that created god that made the Reality and...

 

Still, where did it become? It always was

 

Meh, when becoming very philosophical you ain't getting answer to anything, nor you can prove anything. Everything is up to belief.

 

Other answer to question where did the God come: Something that could think thought about God, thus it was created. If there is no record of it, it has never existed

 

Still, where did that thinking thing come... God created it! It is paradoxal, yes. But I thought time came with the Big Bang. Then before Big Bang that can happen, there's no paradox then. Thinker and God are polar opposites and together are "first mover" and are...

Edited October 27, 2006 by Xard

[taks]

Good explanation about PC there, if you don't mind my saying so. Captured everything wrong with it for me. The counter is of course how you prove intent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sometimes intent is obvious. other times, when someone is attempting to pander to his constituency (which is what colrom was sort of referring to) by disguising his intent, you have to say to yourself "who cares?" if a politician wants to hate another person because of their culture/race/etc., vote him out of office or, worst case, move (that's the beauty of having 50 little experiments in democracy in the US). if a company regularly displays intent, or they repeatedly end up in ambiguous situations, don't work there and, don't buy their products.

 

racism and prejudice are part of the human condition. we're born with a fear of what is different. not everyone is capable of overcoming this due to ignorance, upbringing, or whatever.

 

none of this, however, is an excuse for the rampant overcompensation state we have allowed ourselves to fall into.

 

taks

[kumquatq3]

if a company regularly displays intent, or they repeatedly end up in ambiguous situations, don't work there and, don't buy their products.

 

racism and prejudice are part of the human condition.  we're born with a fear of what is different.  not everyone is capable of overcoming this due to ignorance, upbringing, or whatever.

 

none of this, however, is an excuse for the rampant overcompensation state we have allowed ourselves to fall into.

 

Your idea works if a company is openly racist. You can avoid it them. (of course, I'm not in agreement with you here either, but for arguments sake)

 

What happens when it's real but subtle? Sure, you can leave, but what if you're throwing away years of work because of lies? Among other losses.

 

Also, if someone is incapable of overcoming their ignorance, guess what, that's THEIR problem. Defending the ignorant because of their name sake is silly.

[taks]

Your idea works if a company is openly racist. You can avoid it them. (of course, I'm not in agreement with you here either, but for arguments sake)

if it is not openly, then who does it effect?

 

What happens when it's real but subtle? Sure, you can leave, but what if you're throwing away years of work because of lies? Among other losses.

if you have a fundamental problem with the way they conduct business, then yes, leave. that's the choice you have to make. your rights only extend so far to have that choice in the first place.

 

Also, if someone is incapable of overcoming their ignorance, guess what, that's THEIR problem.

not sure what that has to do with what i have said, or what the point of this thread is, but yes, it is their problem. whether or not, and how, you want to deal with their problem, however, is your problem.

 

Defending the ignorant because of their name sake is silly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nowhere did i defend anyone. i merely pointed out WHY prejudice exists. it has always existed, and always will. the only way it will every disapper is if we all look, believe and behave in exactly the same way. so much for freedom of choice then.

 

in fact, people have every right to be racist or prejudiced. if you attempt to impose your moral beliefs on them, then you are suppressing their freedom, and you become equally immoral. the term "thoughtcrime" comes to mind...

 

taks

[kumquatq3]

if it is not openly, then who does it effect?

 

Glass ceiling anyone?

 

 

if you have a fundamental problem with the way they conduct business, then yes, leave.  that's the choice you have to make.  your rights only extend so far to have that choice in the first place. 

 

Not true, my rights extend past that, you just are arguing you wish they didn't. Not upset, just wanted to make sure this point is clear.

 

not sure what that has to do with what i have said, or what the point of this thread is, but yes, it is their problem.  whether or not, and how, you want to deal with their problem, however, is your problem.

 

Yes, modern litigation is meant to stop making their problem my problem and make it their problem again. As it should be.

 

 

nowhere did i defend anyone.  i merely pointed out WHY prejudice exists.  it has always existed, and always will.  the only way it will every disapper is if we all look, believe and behave in exactly the same way.  so much for freedom of choice then.

 

So it's ok for the ignorant to make their beliefs the problems of others?

 

in fact, people have every right to be racist or prejudiced.  if you attempt to impose your moral beliefs on them, then you are suppressing their freedom, and you become equally immoral.  the term "thoughtcrime" comes to mind...

 

By acting on racism and ignorance you are suppressing their freedom of Liberty.

 

The term "slavery" comes to mind

Edited October 27, 2006 by kumquatq3

[taks]

Not true, my rights extend past that, you just are arguing you wish they didn't.  Not upset, just wanted to make sure this point is clear.

to where? you have a right to dictate other people's moral beliefs?

 

Yes, modern litigation is meant to stop making their problem my problem and make it their problem again. As it should be.

if someone is racist/prejudiced, it is still their problem. no matter how much you want to disagree with their beliefs, how you deal with it is STILL nothing more than YOUR problem.

 

So it's ok for the ignorant to make their beliefs the problems of others?

simply having a belief, whether through ignorance or otherwise, does not give you a right to regulate that belief. it only becomes your problem if you make it so. you have a choice to ignore, or leave, if you so desire.

 

By acting on racism and ignorance you are suppressing their freedom of Liberty.

i never said anything about acting on their beliefs now, did i? also, i think you misunderstand what the freedom of liberty means. constitutionally, you don't even have a right to liberty. you have a right to pursue liberty. in other words, you have a right to decide for yourself.

 

The term "slavery" comes to mind

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

we're not talking about enslaving others. that's an obvious limitation of another's freedom. we're talking about beliefs. i.e. this is nothing more than a strawman.

 

taks

[taks]

i take that back, you do have a right to liberty, you have a right to pursue happiness. apologies for the misstatement.

 

however, i still think you misunderstand what "liberty" means, kumquat. it does not mean that you can force everyone to believe as you do. it means you can expect that others will not trample on your rights so long as you do not trample on theirs. regulating how another believes would be trampling on his rights.

 

taks

[kumquatq3]

however, i still think you misunderstand what "liberty" means, kumquat.  it does not mean that you can force everyone to believe as you do.  it means you can expect that others will not trample on your rights so long as you do not trample on theirs.  regulating how another believes would be trampling on his rights.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure your getting what I'm trying to say. Let them be racist all they want. Hell, I won't have it any other way.

 

BUT when they act on their beliefs to hurt others, intentionally or not, they violate their Liberty. Hence all the "their problems" stuff.

Edited October 27, 2006 by kumquatq3

[taks]

I'm not sure your getting what I'm trying to say.  Let them be racist all they want. Hell, I won't have it any other way.

ok, thanks for the clarification.

 

BUT when they act on their beliefs to hurt others, intentionally or not, they violate their Liberty. Hence all the "their problems" stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that's been my point all along. i'm not talking about people acting on those beliefs (by acting, i mean physically doing something, simpy making a public comment does not apply to what i'm saying). i.e., everything i've said has been about the beliefs themselves.

 

taks

[kumquatq3]

that's been my point all along.  i'm not talking about people acting on those beliefs (by acting, i mean physically doing something, simpy making a public comment does not apply to what i'm saying).  i.e., everything i've said has been about the beliefs themselves.

 

So you mean ZERO actions taken in the name of ignorance, all talk?

 

Then the "racist remarks" is where we differ, it seems.

 

If I got it right, you think people should be able to say such comments with impunity. It's other peoples problem now. Let them adjust if they don't like it.

 

Is that right?

[taks]

yeah... sticks and stones and all that. if you don't like what someone is preaching, ignore him. people have a right to speak their opinions, even if you or i don't like them. that's the catch with free speech, heck freedom in general, you have to put up with others' statements just as much as they have to put up yours, regardless of what either is saying.

 

So you mean ZERO actions taken in the name of ignorance, all talk?

not sure what you mean here. we've strayed so far off course, i'm not sure either of us is certain what the other is getting at... par for the course in multi-page debates i suppose. hehe...

 

taks

Edited October 27, 2006 by taks

[taks]

well, not completely regardless... inciting a riot, for example, is certainly a form of speech that is not protected. neither can you yell "fire" in a crowded amphitheatre.

 

taks

[kumquatq3]

yeah... sticks and stones and all that.  if you don't like what someone is preaching, ignore him.  people have a right to speak their opinions, even if you or i don't like them.  that's the catch with free speech, heck freedom in general, you have to put up with others' statements just as much as they have to put up yours, regardless of what either is saying.

 

I agree people should be able to speak their mind.

 

However, I don't believe that gives that them immunity from any response. I think words can have an impact much like a glass ceiling can. In fact, I don't think you can have such speech and not have some negative effect on someone because of it. I see your idea working in theory, but not in practice.

 

Remember, separate doesn't mean equal for a reason. Because it never was.

 

So you mean ZERO actions taken in the name of ignorance, all talk?

not sure what you mean here. we've strayed so far off course, i'm not sure either of us is certain what the other is getting at... par for the course in multi-page debates i suppose. hehe...

 

taks

 

And we are having 2 at once.

 

I simply meant, we're talking about racist speech, and not physically actions or other impediments that can result in glass ceilings or lower pay, etc

Edited October 27, 2006 by kumquatq3

[taks]

However, I don't believe that gives that them immunity from any response.

i wasn't trying to say there are no repurcussions. that's the other nifty catch with the ability to voice unpopular opinions: you have to put up with other people lashing back. likewise, if a company behaves in a manner that is oppressive (religion, race, etc.), boycott. make it known that their practices are unacceptable, etc... it works.

 

And we are having 2 at once.

yeah, my addled brain is having a tough time keeping up. at least the other one is almost spot-on agreement between the two of us. we're not toooo far off here, either.

 

I simply meant, we're talking about racist speech, and not physically actions or other impediments that can result in glass ceilings or lower pay, etc

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ah, you were simply asking for clarification... gotcha. as for that last bit, i'm torn on how to deal with that. fundamentally i'm opposed to the gubmint telling business how to pay people (just one example). however, there is a reason they had to force business into behaving equitably and i don't disagree (jim crow laws, for example, were ridiculous). unfortunately, the solution has created other problems... torn is the best way to put it.

 

taks

[kumquatq3]

However, I don't believe that gives that them immunity from any response.

i wasn't trying to say there are no repurcussions. that's the other nifty catch with the ability to voice unpopular opinions: you have to put up with other people lashing back. likewise, if a company behaves in a manner that is oppressive (religion, race, etc.), boycott. make it known that their practices are unacceptable, etc... it works.

 

I see what you're saying, I do, but your "backlash" idea is exactly why people hide such views. When there is no backlash, like some places in the south, no "backlash" occurs. Not to mention, Joe vs. Giant Corp isn't a straight up fair fight.

 

So what then? You could just move on, but is that justice? Is that Liberty?

 

Obviously gets grey here there are plenty of contradictions in modern times, but one can not argue that private industry as a whole has only gotten more successful in the last 20 years. Obviously not due to this stuff, but I don't think it has measurably hurt it. Where I do think open hate speech would. Economics not being a moral or legal, of course...

 

 

ah, you were simply asking for clarification... gotcha.  as for that last bit, i'm torn on how to deal with that.  fundamentally i'm opposed to the gubmint telling business how to pay people (just one example).  however, there is a reason they had to force business into behaving equitably and i don't disagree (jim crow laws, for example, were ridiculous).  unfortunately, the solution has created other problems... torn is the best way to put it.

 

taks

 

Quotas and such? I agree, as a white male, their not "right". I fail to come up with something that works better in practice.

[metadigital]

ah, you were simply asking for clarification... gotcha.  as for that last bit, i'm torn on how to deal with that.  fundamentally i'm opposed to the gubmint telling business how to pay people (just one example).  however, there is a reason they had to force business into behaving equitably and i don't disagree (jim crow laws, for example, were ridiculous).  unfortunately, the solution has created other problems... torn is the best way to put it.

Quotas and such? I agree, as a white male, they're not "right". I fail to come up with something that works better in practice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Best way to attack this issue is pre-empting it for future generations, methinks; i.e. engineer education for children to assist and accelerate the natural deprecation of the unwanted antisocial behaviour(s). Children are remarkably astute at detecting hypocrisy and generational changes in behaviour seem to be easier to implement than retrospective ones.