|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: discrimination against....
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 03:54:37 pm EST (Viewed 537 times)
Reply Subj: Re: discrimination against....
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 at 08:41:37 am EST (Viewed 575 times)
Quote: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?
Quote:Interesting way to look at things. I don't agree but I understand your point now.
Quote: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.
No, Im intentionally being obtuse, just trying to qualify your position. I just see things differently. I think an employer is within their rights to effect a dress code (within reason of course). After all, they are paying the salary. And I think tattoos fall under the catergory of dress
Quote:But screw suits and ties-- a couple of the most worthless things ever created. And imo, not one of them has ever looked good.
You probably shouldn't discriminate against people who prefer suits and ties.:-)
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.
Obviously I'm having fun with you but my point is, if we treat everyone as equal, then a nazi symbol and a tribal facial symbol should carry the same weight. You seem to be saying, don't judge people by the art they display on their bodies, unless its nazi.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth but thats the impression I get. I think its perfectly fine to see nothing wrong with tattoos. But then that should apply to all tattoos equally, even if you don't like them.
I would certainly see a difference between a nazi tatto and another tattoo, but then again Im not the one claiming all discrimination is equal:-)
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Its good you can be honest here. To be honest, I think in 20 years time, most western societies will accept face tattoos. we just arent there yet. (Hence I would avoid hiring a facial tattoo for my law firm, for instance. Moreso from the social implications of clients they would work with.)
Quote: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.
Fair enough, I understand your point. Just still think there is a difference for things under our control and not. For me, tats fall under dress code, something the courts generally uphold. And it makes sense that there would be different definitions of discrimination, just like, in my opinion, there are different degrees.
PS English language question because I'm less familiar with the phrase "your content". Is that what it should be or is it "You're content"? Not questioning grammar here, I'm just unfamiliar with the correct usage of the expression (I'm not a native speaker.)
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).