These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Fired cause your not ugly enough?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kairavi Mrithyakara
#21 - 2013-07-13 16:01:42 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
That's not a way to handle the conflict though. That's wishing the actual conflict away. It's an attractive thing to do, but it's a giant waste of time, since you're just hand waving the actual issue away instead of dealing with it. For example if you discuss how to handle conflicts caused by racism and intolerance the solution isn't to say, that people should just stop being racist and intolerant. That's just basically saying, that if the conflict didn't exist, we wouldn't have the conflict. It's certainly true, but as I said, it's adding nothing of value to the discussion about the actual issue.


The conflict already exists; it is the matter of what contributes to its existence that I'm talking about.

Now, I wasn't suggesting you simply wish away the conflict. While I wasn't entirely serious about jerking off as (figuratively speaking) a release, dealing with such issues through therapy is far healthier than simply attempting to rid oneself of the issue by sweeping it under the rug, in this case firing Nelson.

Continuing with the racism example you've used, I'm not suggesting that there be a rule set that racism is illegal and be done with it: what I'm suggesting is pretty much what's already in practice. Therapy, outreach programmes to bridge those communal gaps, awareness building, and so on. And most of these are already in place, already accessible, and noticeably (if not totally) effective at creating discussions on the issue.


Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Point being the situation was what it was and what needed to be decided was, if it was illegal or not in the light of the evidence provided. It wasn't and even if potentially unfair to one party, it seems like a reasonable decision to make.


Objectively it might be logical to make such a decision, but I believe subjectivity comes into play in this case. Given how small this privately owned business is, and how well documented the relationship between the employer and employee seems to be, the decision confuses me. The court claiming there isn't quantifiable evidence when the defendant's wife declares to the press that Nelson was fired because of the attraction thing is a rather bizarre conclusion to reach.
Kairavi Mrithyakara
#22 - 2013-07-13 16:32:14 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Apparently, by judging "why" and not "what", you're making a moral judgement there and want the law to enforce it upon others, you want everyone to follow your moral. What you defend is not a consensual "good", but is based on what you think it is offensive and so the law must make everyone share your morality. I fail to see that desirable for a democracy.


Again, it is like you've either deliberately misinterpreted my post or simply ignored all but the last line. You're reading a level of detail into my post that I certainly did not insert, consciously or otherwise. While I've asked how desirable this decision is on the level of societal development, you gone on what appears to be a Nietzsche inspired discourse on consensual good and draconian morality.


Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
I was thinking of something else, but won't comment further as it would likely derail the thread and have it closed. It's related to a very hot topic that affects only women.


I see. Perhaps you could hint at what it is, then? I'm very intrigued by what this unspeakable subject is, that it causes derails topics so easily.


Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Yes, your moral is good enough for everyone and in case it's not, bring in the Law. "The practices", oh my, how do they dare?


Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
"Eradicate" certain type of men, yes, is both feasible and desirable enough to warrant a prosecution by Law.


Not sure what you're saying in either of those circumstances, so once again, if you could elaborate, that would be helpful.
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-07-14 04:46:47 UTC
An employer is free to terminate someone's employment at any time if their appearance creates or has the strong possibility of creating an environment not conducive to work. Typically this is more associated with clothing and dress codes, but I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to their physical makeup either. People might have less control over the shape of their body than what they wear, but that doesn't mean that it should be ignored if it's disruptive.

That said anyone terminated for such reasons despite years of adequate or better job performance should be extended every courtesy possible. After all, unless they had cosmetic surgery done (including tattoos, piercings, and other body modification) and are just as their genetics decree it's not their fault that their appearance is now a workplace liability rather than job-neutral or an asset.
Jayem See
Perkone
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-07-14 05:00:32 UTC
I don't mean to be rude but most of you are missing the point entirely.

Without any doubt, the moral of the story is that DENTISTS ARE EVIL!

@?&$ing masochists.

Aaaaaaand relax.
Previous page12