Community >> View Post
·
Post By
The Black Guardian
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 23,380
In Reply To
Paladin

Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,177
Subj: Re: discrimination against....
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 08:41:37 am EST (Viewed 162 times)
Reply Subj: Re: discrimination against....
Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 at 05:27:51 pm EST (Viewed 152 times)



    Quote:
    Ok gotcha.

    So you think a person who claims to be discriminated against for having long hair or dressing in a bikini on a job interview has just as much of a grievance as someone who is discriminated against for being black?

    Interesting way to look at things. I don't agree but I understand your point now.

    While we can agree discrimination is bad, I think there are different levels. Kinda like crime. A jaywalker and a murderer are both criminals but I think we can agree painting them with the same brush isn't productive.

Obviously there are different levels and you're purposely being obtuse. But ideally, yes, we should never be concerned about what a person wears. And especially, yes, hair style should never, ever be a reason for not considering a person for a job, unless it directly affects their job.

But screw suits and ties-- a couple of the most worthless things ever created. And imo, not one of them has ever looked good.


    Quote:
    Which was why I didn't think tattoos are on the same level as race or gender.

It's still a completely irrational and superficial reason to discriminate.


    Quote:
    As you pointed out, we are all a bit prejuduced when it comes to these things. I imagine if you went to the dentist and he had a big swastika tattoo on his forehead you would have no problem with it. Shouldn't we judge that?

I've already said that I'm guilty of it, and that it all depends on the job and the artwork. When it comes to anything Nazi-related, I don't even want the person living in the same country as I do.

This goes deeper than just judging based on tattoos. I'm not judging that the person has tattoos. I'm judging them as a person for what they are clearly choosing to represent themselves. I might be okay with an Iron Cross, because that's not specifically Nazi, and I'd be cool with Norse-style swastikas (put as many of them you want wherever you want), but not Nazi-style swastikas.

But it might be totally awesome cool to have a dentist with a big tribal mark on their face (like maybe something like Mike Tyson's). I'm being kinda facetious here. Facial tatts are something that I question, but I feel lousy for it when I self examine, because it does go against what I firmly believe.

Incidentally, I know a dentist that has a cuff on his right forearm. It's very visible when he works. He's not my dentist, but I wouldn't care if he was. I know a nurse with a tattoo collar (and many, many other tatts), and I totally want her attending me whenever I'm sick.


    Quote:

    By webster's definition of discrimination, every job interview is discriminatory. You are discriminating against people who are less compentent for those who are more compentent.

My dictionary says, "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things." But whatever. There are several definitions, so cherry pick to your content. Competence is a valid criterion to judge, not what a person looks like for whatever reason, unless looks are a major part of the job duties (basically, just acting/modeling).


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software